Abstract:We read with interest the report by Cheng et al,1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar which compared fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of pancreatic and abdominal masses. In their randomized controlled trial (RCT), 249 patients with pancreatic masses were assigned randomly to groups (1:1) for assessment by EUS-FNA (n = 126) or EUS-FNB (n = 123). Finally, they found that EUS-FNB samples of pancreatic masses produced a more accurate diagnosis than the samples collected by EUS-FNA (P = .0099). However, this was inconsistent with 2 newly published studies, which reported a similar level of diagnostic accuracy between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (P = .063 in Bang et al,2Noh D.H. et al.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 1-6Google Scholar and P = .564 in Noh et al3Bang J.Y. et al.Gut. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar). We thought this inconsistency might be caused by the small size of included patients in Noh et al3Bang J.Y. et al.Gut. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar (n = 60) and Bang et al2Noh D.H. et al.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 1-6Google Scholar (n = 46) studies. After a systematic literature review, it was found that most related RCTs also were limited in sample size. Except for Cheng et al,1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar none of the studies reported a higher accuracy in EUS-FNB than EUS-FNA. To overcome the limitation of small sample size, we conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNB with EUS-FNA in sampling pancreatic masses. Eleven studies were included with a total of 694 EUS-FNA cases and 688 EUS-FNB cases.1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar, 2Noh D.H. et al.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 1-6Google Scholar, 3Bang J.Y. et al.Gut. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar, 4Bang J.Y. et al.Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 76: 321-327Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (194) Google Scholar, 5Hucl T. et al.Endoscopy. 2013; 45: 792-798Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar, 6Lee Y.N. et al.Endoscopy. 2014; 46: 1056-1062Crossref PubMed Scopus (109) Google Scholar, 7Strand D.S. et al.Diagn Cytopathol. 2014; 42: 751-758Crossref PubMed Scopus (57) Google Scholar, 8Vanbiervliet G. et al.Endoscopy. 2014; 46: 1063-1070Crossref PubMed Scopus (70) Google Scholar, 9Alatawi A. et al.United European Gastroenterol J. 2015; 3: 343-352Crossref PubMed Scopus (67) Google Scholar, 10Aadam A.A. et al.Endosc Int Open. 2016; 4: E497-E505Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 11Kamata K. et al.Endoscopy. 2016; 48: 632-638Crossref PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar EUS-FNB showed a higher accuracy than EUS-FNA in diagnosing pancreatic masses (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17–2.26; n = 10, I2 = 17%) (Figure 1). As for adverse events, no significant difference was found between EUS-FNB and EUS-FNB (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.27–3.78; n = 10, I2 = 0%) (Figure 2). The Egger test detected no significant publication biases. EUS-FNB had a higher accuracy (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.00–2.07; I2 = 9%) and comparable safety (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.37–11.46; I2 = 0%) than EUS-FNA after excluding the study by Cheng et al.1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google ScholarFigure 2Forrest plot for adverse events of EUS-FNB in comparison with EUS-FNA. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) A previous meta-analysis by Wang et al12Wang J. et al.Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96: e7452Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar did not find a statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB vs EUS-FNA (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49–1.07; n = 7, I2 = 8%). However, Wang et al12Wang J. et al.Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96: e7452Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar did not include 3 high-quality studies that subsequently have been published.1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar, 2Noh D.H. et al.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 1-6Google Scholar, 3Bang J.Y. et al.Gut. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar When we included these studies, the sample size increased significantly (by 50% in both the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNA groups). Thus, we could reach a more reliable result. In conclusion, we found that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in sampling pancreatic masses, which is consistent with the Cheng et al1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar study. Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled TrialClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologyVol. 16Issue 8PreviewEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needles with side fenestrations are used to collect aspirates for cytology analysis and biopsy samples for histologic analysis. We conducted a large, multicenter study to compare the accuracy of diagnosis via specimens collected with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for patients with pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses. Full-Text PDF

Comparison of 19G FNA Versus 22G FNB Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound‐Guided Fine‐Needle Sampling of Subepithelial Tumors

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Conventional Forceps Biopsy Compared to ESD.

Optimal Number of Needle Passes During EUS-guided Fine-Needle Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Lesions with 22G ProCore Needles and Different Suction Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial

A Prospective Multicenter Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing FNA and FNB in the Diagnosis of Solid Masses

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound (Eus)-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Using 22-Gauge and 25-Gauge Needles for Pancreatic Masses

Mo1378 Initial Experience with a Novel Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Core Biopsy Device

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with Different Needle Types for Solid Pancreatic Masses: a Prospective and Randomized Comparative Trial in Two Centers

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy is Superior to Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration in Sampling Pancreatic Masses.

Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy Vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mo1315 ONE AND DONE: EUS-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY IN PANCREATIC CANCER FOR DIAGNOSIS AND MOLECULAR ANALYSIS

Diagnostic value of different puncture needles in endoscopic ultrasonography guided aspiration for pancreatic solid masses

Factors Associated with Diagnostic Accuracy, Technical Success and Adverse Events of Endoscopic Ultrasound‐guided Fine‐needle Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

High diagnostic adequacy and accuracy of the new 20G procore needle for EUS-guided tissue acquisition: Results of a large multicentre retrospective study

Comparison of fine needle aspiration and non-aspiration cytology for diagnosis of thyroid nodules: A prospective, randomized, and controlled trial

Influence of different sample processing methods on yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

Twenty Versus 40 Back-and-forth Needle Movements for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Masses: a Prospective, Crossover, Randomized Study.

Fine needle biopsy versus fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of immunohistochemistry-required lesions: A multicenter study with prospective evaluation

Comparison of methods to detect neoplasia in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration for Gastrointestinal Lesions with Inconclusive Endoscopic Biopsies

Comparison of Smear Cytology and Liquid-Based Cytology in EUS-guided FNA of Pancreatic Lesions: Experience from a Large Tertiary Center