Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 26, 2026
Optimization of Breast Biopsy and Mastectomy Sample Collection Procedures for Biobanking, Personalized Medicine, and Research Applications
Published on: September 2, 2025
Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic
Yun Nah Lee1, Jong Ho Moon1, Hee Kyung Kim2
1Digestive Disease Center and Research Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, SoonChunHyang University School of Medicine, Bucheon and Seoul, Korea.
Background And Study Aims:
An endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) device using a core biopsy needle was developed to improve diagnostic accuracy by simultaneously obtaining cytological aspirates and histological core samples. We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB with standard EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with solid pancreatic masses.
Patients And Methods:
Between January 2012 and May 2013, consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses were prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo EUS-FNB using a core biopsy needle or EUS-FNA using a standard aspiration needle at a single tertiary center. The specimen was analyzed by onsite cytology, Papanicolaou-stain cytology, and histology. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy. The secondary outcome measures were: the median number of passes required to establish a diagnosis, the proportion of patients in whom the diagnosis was established with each pass, and complication rates.
Results:
The overall accuracy of combining onsite cytology with Papanicolaou-stain cytology and histology was not significantly different for the FNB (n = 58) and FNA (n = 58) groups (98.3 % [95 %CI 94.9 % - 100 %] vs. 94.8 % [95 %CI 91.9 % - 100 %]; P = 0.671). Compared with FNA, FNB required a significantly lower median number of needle passes to establish a diagnosis (1.0 vs. 2.0; P < 0.001). On subgroup analysis of 111 patients with malignant lesions, the proportion of patients in whom malignancy was diagnosed on the first pass was significantly greater in the FNB group (72.7 % vs. 37.5 %; P < 0.001).
Conclusions:
The overall accuracy of FNB and FNA in patients with solid pancreatic masses was comparable; however, fewer passes were required to establish the diagnosis of malignancy using FNB.This study was registered on the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000014057).
