Search

Background:There are very few available data on the novel SharkCore™ needles for EUS-FNB. Aim:Comparison of the performance of the SharkCore™ needles with the standard EUS-FNA needles for the diagnosis of solid upper GI masses. Patients and methods:Single-center, retrospective cohort study in an academic tertiary referral hospital. Patients were matched 1:1 for the site of the lesion and the presence or absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Results:A total of 102 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes (3.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.4 ± 1.5;p = .89). Similar results were observed at the subgroup with ROSE (4.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.7 ± 1.5;p = .26). More histological specimens were obtained with the SharkCore™ needles compared to standard needles (59 versus 5%;p < .001). Diagnostic test characteristics were not significantly different (sensitivity: 91.5 versus 85.7; specificity: 100 versus 100%; accuracy: 92.2 versus 85.4% for SharkCore™ versus standard needles,p > .05 in all cases). At multivariable analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes in all patients (p = .23) and in the ROSE subgroup (p = .66). However, the SharkCore™ needle obtained significantly more histological material than the standard needle (odds ratio 66; 95% confidence interval: 11.8, 375.8,p < .001). There was no significant difference in complication rates (p = .5). Limitations:Retrospective study, single-center. Conclusion:The SharkCore needles were similar to standard FNA needles in terms of the number of passes to reach diagnosis, but obtained significantly more histological specimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]