A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions

Background and study aims: The study aimed to investigate whether the 25G needle is superior to the 22G needle when used in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid lesions.

Patients and methods: The study was a single-center randomized clinical trial. The setting was a tertiary referral hospital, where EUS-FNA of solid lesions was assisted by an on-site cytopathologist, who was blinded to the needle size. The main end point was the number of passes performed to obtain adequate samples. Crossover to the other type of needle was allowed after five passes, or when the gastroenterologist experienced difficulties in puncturing the lesions.

Results: A total of 129 solid lesions were randomized and data regarding 127 lesions were analyzed. The mean number of passes was 3.7 (± 1.9) in the 22G needle group and 3.8 (± 2) in the 25G needle groups (difference of means: 0.1; 95 %CI: – 0.59 to 0.79). Fifty-eight of 63 (92.1 %) and 60/64 samples (93.7 %) in the 22G and 25G needle groups respectively were adequate (difference: – 1.6 %; 95 %CI: – 12.1 % to 8.9 %). Crossover to the other type of needle was performed in 11/63 (17.5 %) and in 12/64 (18.7 %) lesions in the two groups respectively (difference: – 1.2 %; 95 %CI: – 16.2 % to 13.8 %). A crossover to the 25G needle was successfully performed in four masses in the uncinate process; these lesions were difficult to puncture using the 22G needle.

Conclusions: Our study failed to demonstrate that the 25G is more effective than the 22G needle in EUS-FNA of solid lesions. However, targeting of lesions in the distal duodenum may be simplified by using the 25G needle.

References

• 1 Erickson R A. EUS-guided FNA.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 267-279
• 2 Erturk S M, Silverman S, Mortele K et al. Percutaneous biopsy of abdominal masses using 25-gauge needles.  Abdom Imaging. 2010;  35 70-74
• 3 Tangpricha V, Chen B J, Swan N C et al. Twenty-one-gauge needles provide more cellular samples than twenty-five-gauge needles in fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the thyroid but may not provide increased diagnostic accuracy.  Thyroid. 2001;  11 973-976
• 4 Gerke H. EUS-guided FNA: better sample with smaller needles?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  70 1098-1100
• 5 Nguyen T TH, Lee C E, Whang C S et al. A comparison of the diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy between 22 and 25 gauge needles for endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions: is bigger better?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;  67 AB100
• 6 Yusuf T E, Ho S, Pavey D A et al. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience.  Endoscopy. 2009;  41 445-448
• 7 Conway J, Kundu S, Mishra G et al. Is there a difference in diagnostic yield between 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid lesions?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  69 S248
• 8 Fabbri C, Polifemo A M, Luigiano C et al. Comparative study of EUS-guided 25 gauge needle versus EUS-guided 22 gauge needle for FNA in patients with solid pancreatic masses: preliminary results.  Dig Liv Dis. 2009;  41 S60-61
• 9 Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T et al. Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses.  J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;  24 384-390
• 10 Siddiqui U D, Rossi F, Rosenthal L S et al. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge versus 25-gauge needles.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  70 1093-1097
• 11 Rindi G, Kloppel G, Ahlman M et al. TMN staging of (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system.  Virchows Arch. 2006;  449 395-401
• 12 Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi M A. Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 728-736
• 13 Volmar K E, Vollmer R T, Jowell P S et al. Pancreatic FNA in 1000 cases: a comparison of imaging modalities.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 854-861
• 14 Savides T J, Donohue M, Hunt G et al. EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  66 277-282
• 15 LeBlanc J K, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi M T et al. Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 475-481
• 16 Polkowski M, Bergman M. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biopsy for submucosal tumors: needless needling?.  Endoscopy. 2010;  42 324-326
• 17 Philipper M, Hollerbach S, Gabbert H E et al. Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration and surgical histology in upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors.  Endoscopy. 2010;  42 300-305
• 18 Sepe P S, Moparty B, Pitman M B et al. EUS-guided FNA for the diagnosis of GI stromal cell tumors: sensitivity and cytologic yield.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  70 254-261