Search

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: G. G. Konijeti: Consultant for Abbvie; speaker for Takeda and Lilly. B. P. Abraham: Consultant for Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, Prometheus, Bioepis, and Takeda; speaker for Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. A. Abegunde: Consultant for Ferring Pharmaceuticals; research support from Finch Therapeutics. F. A. Farraye: Consultant for AbbVie, Avalo Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Braintree Labs, Fresenius Kabi, GI Reviewers, GSK, IBD Educational Group, Iterative Health, Janssen, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sandoz Immunology, and Viatris. T. Kowalski: Consultant for Boston Scientific. A. Kumar: Consultant for Olympus and Boston Scientific. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: A recently carried out randomized controlled trial showed the benefit of a novel 20-G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over a 25-G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle. The current study evaluated the reproducibility of these findings among expert academic and non-academic pathologists. METHODS: This study was a side-study of the ASPRO (ASpiration versus PROcore) study. Five centers retrieved 74 (59%) consecutive FNB and 51 (41%) FNA samples from the ASPRO study according to randomization; 64 (51%) pancreatic and 61 (49%) lymph node specimens. Samples were re-reviewed by five expert academic and five non-academic pathologists and rated in terms of sample quality and diagnosis. Ratings were compared between needles, expert academic and non-academic pathologists, target lesions, and cytology versus histological specimens. RESULTS: Besides a higher diagnostic accuracy, FNB also provided for a better agreement on diagnosing malignancy (ĸ = 0.59 vs ĸ = 0.76, P

Several studies have compared EUS-guided FNA with fine-needle biopsy (FNB), but none have proven superiority. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of a commonly used 25-gauge FNA needle with a newly designed 20-gauge FNB needle.Consecutive patients with a solid lesion were randomized in this international multicenter study between a 25-gauge FNA (EchoTip Ultra) or a 20-gauge FNB needle (ProCore). The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy and the Bethesda classification (non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, malignant). Technical success, safety, and sample quality were also assessed. Multivariable and supplementary analyses were performed to adjust for confounders.A total of 608 patients were allocated to FNA (n = 306) or FNB (n = 302); 312 pancreatic lesions (51%), 147 lymph nodes (24%), and 149 other lesions (25%). Technical success rate was 100% for the 25-gauge FNA and 99% for the 20-gauge FNB needle (P = .043), with no differences in adverse events. The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed 25-gauge FNA in terms of histologic yield (77% vs 44%, P .001), accuracy for malignancy (87% vs 78%, P = .002) and Bethesda classification (82% vs 72%, P = .002). This was robust when corrected for indication, lesion size, number of passes, and presence of an on-site pathologist (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-8.56; P = .004), and did not differ among centers (P = .836).The 20-gauge FNB needle outperformed the 25-gauge FNA needle in terms of histologic yield and diagnostic accuracy. This benefit was irrespective of the indication and was consistent among participating centers, supporting the general applicability of our findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02167074.).