Randomized trial comparing fork-tip and side-fenestrated needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and Aims The aim of this study was to compare the performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using fork-tip or side-fenestrated needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Methods A randomized controlled study was conducted in a single academic center on patients who underwent sampling with fork-tip or side-fenestrated 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles. Three passes were performed, each independently evaluated by a blinded pathologist and by endosonographers for macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was histologic yield; secondary aims were safety, diagnostic yield, sample quality, number of needle passes required to establish a diagnosis, and reliability of MOSE. Results One hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled. Both 22-gauge and 25-gauge fork-tip needles retrieved significantly higher rates of histologic samples than side-fenestrated needles (P < .013). Safety and diagnostic accuracy were comparable in the 2 arms, whereas sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination) was significantly better in the fork-tip group (P < .0001). The median number of diagnostic passes was lower using fork-tip needles (P = .054). The agreement between MOSE and pathologic evaluation was almost perfect in the fork-tip group and fair in the side-fenestrated group. Conclusions Both needles showed equivalent safety and diagnostic accuracy. However, fork-tip needles provided a higher rate of extremely good-quality histologic samples and required fewer needle passes to reach a diagnosis. MOSE is a highly reliable tool when fork-tip needles are used compared with side-fenestrated needles. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03622229.) The aim of this study was to compare the performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using fork-tip or side-fenestrated needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions. A randomized controlled study was conducted in a single academic center on patients who underwent sampling with fork-tip or side-fenestrated 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles. Three passes were performed, each independently evaluated by a blinded pathologist and by endosonographers for macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE). The primary outcome was histologic yield; secondary aims were safety, diagnostic yield, sample quality, number of needle passes required to establish a diagnosis, and reliability of MOSE. One hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled. Both 22-gauge and 25-gauge fork-tip needles retrieved significantly higher rates of histologic samples than side-fenestrated needles (P < .013). Safety and diagnostic accuracy were comparable in the 2 arms, whereas sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination) was significantly better in the fork-tip group (P < .0001). The median number of diagnostic passes was lower using fork-tip needles (P = .054). The agreement between MOSE and pathologic evaluation was almost perfect in the fork-tip group and fair in the side-fenestrated group. Both needles showed equivalent safety and diagnostic accuracy. However, fork-tip needles provided a higher rate of extremely good-quality histologic samples and required fewer needle passes to reach a diagnosis. MOSE is a highly reliable tool when fork-tip needles are used compared with side-fenestrated needles. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03622229.)