Prospective study of a Trucut needle for performing EUS-guided biopsy with EUS-guided FNA rescue

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is an accurate technique for sampling extraintestinal masses and lymph nodes. The use of a Trucut needle to perform EUS-guided biopsy (EUS-TCB) may improve the results or simplify the procedure. To date, few studies have prospectively assessed the performance and the safety of EUS-TCB. METHODS: Patients with a known or a suspected malignancy referred for a diagnostic and/or staging EUS examination were enrolled in a prospective study. EUS-guided biopsy was performed first with a 19-gauge Trucut needle. If the Trucut failed to obtain an adequate sample or when the "in room" touch preparation was benign, EUS-FNA was performed with a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. The objective of the study was to assess the yield of detection of malignancy and the safety of EUS-TCB in patients with known or suspected malignancies and to investigate if EUS-FNA has a role for rescue in cases of Trucut failure. OBSERVATIONS: Thirty-nine lesions underwent EUS-TCB in 30 patients. Sufficient follow-up was available for all patients. By using EUS-TCB, we were able to obtain a sample for diagnosis in all but 3 patients (one pancreatic mass and two lymph nodes) in which technical problems arose. In these patients, the diagnosis was obtained in two cases by EUS-FNA and in the other one by EUS-TCB from the primary pancreatic tumor. The yield of detection of malignancy for EUS-TCB was 84%. No complications were recorded in any patients at 1 and 7 days of follow-up. The sample size is limited to generalize conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-TCB is a safe and an accurate procedure to obtain a histologic diagnosis in patients with known or suspected malignancies. EUS-FNA can serve as a rescue technique in cases of Trucut failure.     

EUS-guided trucut biopsy in establishing autoimmune pancreatitis as the cause of obstructive jaundice

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis can be difficult and often requires a larger specimen than can be provided by FNA alone to determine if the tissue sample obtained with EUS trucut biopsy (TCB) is sufficient to allow adequate histologic review to establish the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. METHODS: EUS TCB was performed in patients presenting with obstructive jaundice who were suspected of having autoimmune pancreatitis based on their clinical, laboratory and imaging studies. The charts were retrospectively reviewed to determine the feasibility of TCB. RESULTS: Between August 2002 and June 2004, 3 patients with obstructive jaundice and suspected autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) underwent EUS TCB. In each case, a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer also was considered, and surgical resection was the planned therapy before the patient underwent EUS TCB. Histologic review of the TCB specimens established the diagnosis of AIP in two patients and identified nonspecific changes of chronic pancreatitis in the third patient. EUS-guided FNA was performed in two of the 3 patients and failed to establish the diagnosis in either patient. Other than mild transient abdominal pain (n = 1), no complications were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that EUS TCB can safely establish the diagnosis of AIP. Doing so helps guide management and may help to avoid unnecessary surgery. Prospective studies are needed to verify these findings and to more clearly define the role of EUS TCB in these patients.     

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy adds significant information to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in selected patients: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) has recently emerged as a method that seeks to overcome the limitations of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) by providing a core-tissue specimen needed to increase the yield and accuracy of the diagnosis. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether EUS-TCB adds any information to EUS-FNA in selected patients and to assess the diagnostic yield, overall accuracy and complications of EUS-TCB as compared with EUS-FNA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study prospectively included 30 patients who had undergone both procedures. RESULTS: The yield of adequate tissue harvesting was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB (96.4% versus 89.3%, p=NS), with the same number of passes done. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was also similar to that of EUS-TCB for the diagnosis of malignant mediastinal masses (73.7% versus 68.4%, p=NS). However, the accuracy for obtaining a specific diagnosis was significantly lower for EUS-FNA compared with EUS-TCB (5.3% and 68.4%, p<0.005). EUS-TCB did not appear to help as a rescue procedure in mediastinal tumours, after a false negative result of EUS-FNA. All cases of submucosal tumours were correctly classified by EUS-TCB as gastrointestinal stromal cell tumours (GISTs) or leiomyomas, while EUS-FNA raised only a suspicion of mesenchymal tumour. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-TCB was certainly useful when immunohistochemistry was needed, for example in submucosal tumours and lymphoma, as well as to confirm and characterize the primary or metastatic origin of mediastinal masses. The information provided by EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB is complementary, especially in selected cases where a complete histological diagnosis has an important impact on the clinical management.     

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy adds significant information to EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration in selected patients: A prospective study

Objective. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided Trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) has recently emerged as a method that seeks to overcome the limitations of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) by providing a core-tissue specimen needed to increase the yield and accuracy of the diagnosis. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether EUS-TCB adds any information to EUS-FNA in selected patients and to assess the diagnostic yield, overall accuracy and complications of EUS-TCB as compared with EUS-FNA. Material and methods. The study prospectively included 30 patients who had undergone both procedures. Results. The yield of adequate tissue harvesting was similar for EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB (96.4% versus 89.3%, p=NS), with the same number of passes done. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was also similar to that of EUS-TCB for the diagnosis of malignant mediastinal masses (73.7% versus 68.4%, p=NS). However, the accuracy for obtaining a specific diagnosis was significantly lower for EUS-FNA compared with EUS-TCB (5.3% and 68.4%, p<0.005). EUS-TCB did not appear to help as a rescue procedure in mediastinal tumours, after a false negative result of EUS-FNA. All cases of submucosal tumours were correctly classified by EUS-TCB as gastrointestinal stromal cell tumours (GISTs) or leiomyomas, while EUS-FNA raised only a suspicion of mesenchymal tumour. Conclusions. EUS-TCB was certainly useful when immunohistochemistry was needed, for example in submucosal tumours and lymphoma, as well as to confirm and characterize the primary or metastatic origin of mediastinal masses. The information provided by EUS-FNA and EUS-TCB is complementary, especially in selected cases where a complete histological diagnosis has an important impact on the clinical management.     

Histological diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis using EUS-guided trucut biopsy: a comparison study with EUS-FNA

Purpose  The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided trucut biopsy (TCB) for diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). Methods  Fourteen patients with suspected AIP based on imaging studies underwent both EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and EUS-TCB for diagnosis of AIP and exclusion of pancreatic cancer (PC). According to the revised Japanese clinical diagnostic criteria, AIP was diagnosed in eight while the remaining six patients had pancreatitis of other etiologies. Pathologically, AIP was defined as lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis (LPSP), and sub-divided into two types: definite LPSP (d-LPSP) showing fulspectrum of LPSP and probable LPSP (p-LPSP) without obliterative phlebitis or abundant (>10 cells/hpf) IgG4-positive plasmacytes infiltration. Results  PC was excluded in all patients. EUS-FNA resulted in three of eight patients with AIP were reported as p-LPSP, one was reported as normal, and 4 were inconclusive. One of six with non-autoimmune pancreatitis was diagnosed as p-LPSP on EUS-FNA, one as idiopathic chronic pancreatitis (ICP) and four were inconclusive. By using EUS-TCB, all AIP patients were diagnosed as LPSP (4 d-LPSP and 4 p-LPSP). Of the six patients with non-autoimmune pancreatitis, three were diagnosed as LPSP (1 d-LPSP and 2 p-LPSP) and three showed ICP on TCB. No complications were identified in any patient with either EUS-FNA or TCB. Conclusion  EUS-TCB is a safe and accurate procedure for obtaining a histological diagnosis in patients with suspected AIP. EUS-TCB can serve as a rescue technique in cases of AIP lacking typical findings.     

EUS-guided Trucut mural biopsies in the investigation of unexplained thickening of the esophagogastric wall

BACKGROUND: In patients with thickened esophagogastric wall on CT but without evidence of malignancy on endoscopic mucosal biopsies, obtaining adequate histology from the gut wall is difficult. We examined whether it is feasible to obtain diagnostic tissue core from the gut wall by using EUS-guided Trucut biopsy technique in this group of patients. METHODS: Ten patients were included in this study. Under EUS guidance, mucosa was penetrated by using a 19-gauge Trucut needle, and a 18-mm tissue tray was advanced obliquely through the wall layers to avoid penetration of the serosa. Then, the cutting sheath was fired over the tray. OBSERVATIONS: Biopsies were performed without complications. Diagnoses of carcinoma were made in 5 patients. Four other patients had benign histology, and, during follow-up, all these diagnoses have been proven to be true negatives. One Trucut biopsy specimen was considered false negative. CONCLUSIONS: The EUS-guided Trucut mural biopsy technique could yield diagnostic tissue cores in patients with unexplained thickening of the esophagogastric wall.     

胰腺占位经皮Trucut针穿刺活检的临床应用

目的 探讨超声或CT引导下经皮Trucut活检针穿刺活检对胰腺占位的诊断价值.方法 对124例临床诊断胰腺癌但无病理诊断的患者在超声或CT引导下行经皮Trucut针穿刺活检检查.结果 超声引导下穿刺109例,CT引导下穿刺15例.平均每例穿刺2.3次.124例患者均获取组织标本,病理诊断与临床符合率95.2％,其中腺癌115例,囊腺瘤5例,转移癌2例,来源不明癌1例,1例未见癌细胞.诊断敏感性99.2％,特异性100％,准确率99.2％.3例术后出现一过性血清淀粉酶升高;5例术后腹痛加重,均经对症处理后症状减轻;1例术后34 d发现原穿刺部位皮下种植转移.无其他严重并发症.结论 超声或CT引导下经皮胰腺肿物16～18G Trucut针穿刺活检是一种安全、简便、诊断准确率高的方法.     

Preliminary experience with an EUS-guided trucut biopsy needle compared with EUS-guided FNA

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided FNA is a sensitive method for the diagnosis of malignancy. However, EUS-FNA is often laborious and usually requires the presence of a cytopathologist or cytotechnician. The development of an EUS-guided Trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB) needle may simplify the procedure and expand the application of EUS-directed procurement of biopsy specimens. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of using the EUS-TCB for the diagnosis of intraintestinal and extraintestinal lesions and compare the results with this needle with those of EUS-FNA. METHODS: The EUS-TCB and EUS-FNA were used to evaluate patients with known or suspected intraintestinal or extraintestinal mass lesions and/or lymphadenopathy. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed to determine the accuracy and safety of both techniques. RESULTS: Nineteen patients had tissue samples obtained with both the EUS-TCB and EUS-FNA from 20 sites (2 sites in 1 patient) between December 2001 and March 2002. Accuracy was higher with EUS-TCB than EUS-FNA, although the difference was not significant (85% vs. 60%), despite performing fewer passes with the former (mean [SD] 2.0 [0.7], range 1-4; vs. mean 3.3 [1.5], range 1-10; p < 0.05). No complications were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests EUS-TCB can safely be used to obtain biopsy specimens of intraintestinal and extraintestinal mass lesions and lymphadenopathy. Its use may reduce the number of needle passes compared with EUS-FNA. This may reduce costs by shortening the procedure, diminishing the need for an onsite cytopathologist or technician, and lowering the frequency of nondiagnostic procedures. Prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.     

超声内镜引导下Trucut肾活检的可行性评价

目的评估超声内镜引导下Trucut穿刺活检(EUS-TCB)对肾脏组织穿刺活检的有效性及安全性。方法将体重为25~30kg的食用猪,经静脉麻醉后行超声内镜检查及EUS-TCB,穿刺获取的组织标本通过大体及组织学检查,观察获取组织条块的状态,测量组织条块的长度,观察组织中完整肾小球的数量。检查结束后进行动物解剖并观察腹腔内出血状况。结果共对3头猪的肾脏穿刺16次,平均每头穿刺5·3次,13次(81%)穿刺成功获得了肾脏组织;所获得的组织条块中,最长达7mm,最短为0·95mm,平均(3·64±1·73)mm;完整的肾小球数共46个(范围0~10个/次),平均每次穿刺获得的肾小球数为(3·5±2·9)个;大体解剖观察腹腔内未见显著的出血现象。结论EUS-TCB可以安全、有效地对肾脏进行穿刺,并获得满意的肾组织用于组织病理学观察。