Ayesha Soomro

Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle injection for oncological therapy

The minimal invasiveness and precision of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has lead to both its widespread use as a diagnostic and staging modality for gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary malignancies, and to its expanding role as a therapeutic modality. EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis is now a well-accepted modality for palliation of pain in patients with pancreatic cancer. EUS-guided ablation, brachytherapy, fiducial marker placement, and antitumor agent injection have been described as methods of performing minimally invasive oncological therapy. EUS-fine needle injection may be performed as adjunctive, alternative, or palliative treatment. This review summarizes the studies to date that have described these methods. A literature search using the PubMed/MEDLINE databases was performed. While most published studies to date are limited with disappointing outcomes, the concept of a role of EUS in oncological therapy seems promising.

A Multicenter comparative trial of a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore™) with the 22-gauge needle in patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions

Background and Objectives: The ability to obtain adequate tissue of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-guided remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the performance characteristics and safety of EUS-FNA for evaluating solid pancreatic lesions using the standard 22-gauge needle versus a novel EUS biopsy needle. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study of EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions between 2009 and 2015. Patients underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SharkCore (SC) needle or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. Technical success, performance characteristics of EUS-FNA, the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, and complications were compared. Results: A total of 1088 patients (mean age = 66 years; 49% female) with pancreatic masses underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SC needle (n = 115) or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle (n = 973). Technical success was 100%. The frequency of obtaining an adequate cytology by EUS-FNA was similar when using the SC and the standard needle (94.1% vs. 92.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for tissue diagnosis were not significantly different between two needles. Adequate sample collection leading to a definite diagnosis was achieved by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pass in 73%, 92%, and 98% of procedures using the SC needle and 20%, 37%, and 94% procedures using the standard needle (P < 0.001), respectively. The median number of passes to obtain a tissue diagnosis using the SC needle was significantly less as compared to the standard needle (1 and 3, respectively; P< 0.001). Conclusions: The EUS SC biopsy needle is safe and technically feasible for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Preliminary results suggest that the SC needle has a diagnostic yield similar to the standard EUS needle and significantly reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain a tissue diagnosis.