» Articles » PMID: 34079874

Macroscopic On-site Evaluation (MOSE) of Specimens from Solid Lesions Acquired During EUS-FNB: Multicenter Study and Comparison Between Needle Gauges

Abstract

The standard method for obtaining samples during endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is fine-needle aspiration (FNA), the accuracy of which can be affected by the presence of a cytopathologist in endoscopy room (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE]). With the introduction of fine-needle biopsy (FNB), macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of a acquired specimen has been proposed. Only a few studies have evaluated the role of MOSE and in all except one, a 19G needle was used. Our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and accuracy of MOSE with different needle sizes and the secondary aim was to identify factors influencing the yield of MOSE. Data from patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid lesions, with MOSE evaluation of the specimen, were collected in six endoscopic referral centers. A total of 378 patients (145 F and 233 M) were enrolled. Needles sizes used during the procedures were 20G (42 %), 22G (45 %), and 25G (13 %). The median number of needle passes was two (IQR 2-3). The overall diagnostic yield of MOSE was of 90 % (confidence interval [CI] 86 %-92 %). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, variables independently associated with the diagnostic yield of MOSE were a larger needle diameter (20G vs. 25G, OR 11.64, 95 %CI 3.5-38.71; 22G vs. 25G, OR 6.20, 95 %CI 2.41-15.90) and three of more needle passes (OR 3.39, 95 %CI 1.38-8.31). MOSE showed high diagnostic yield and accuracy. Its yield was further increased if performed with a large size FNB needles and more than two passes.

Citing Articles

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Tissue Sampling: Lesion Assessment, Needles, and Techniques.

Dhar J, Samanta J, Nabi Z, Aggarwal M, Conti Bellocchi M, Facciorusso A Medicina (Kaunas). 2025; 60(12.

PMID: 39768901 PMC: 11727853. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60122021.


Using Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Pancreato-Biliary Cancers.

Chaves J, Fernandez Y Viesca M, Arvanitakis M Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(13).

PMID: 37444495 PMC: 10340478. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15133385.


EUS-Guided Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Lesions, What Is New?.

Vasilakis T, Ziogas D, Tziatzios G, Gkolfakis P, Koukoulioti E, Kapizioni C Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(13).

PMID: 37443568 PMC: 10340322. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13132176.


Macroscopic on‑site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound‑guided fine needle aspiration using a 22‑gauge needle for solid lesions: A single‑center retrospective study.

Guan C, Wu M, Ye J, Liu Z, Mao Z, Lu C Exp Ther Med. 2023; 26(1):338.

PMID: 37383379 PMC: 10294598. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2023.12037.


Recent Developments in the Field of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment of Pancreatic Lesions.

Poiraud M, Gkolfakis P, Arvanitakis M Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(9).

PMID: 37174012 PMC: 10177103. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15092547.


References
1.
Kappelle W, van Leerdam M, Schwartz M, Bulbul M, Buikhuisen W, Brink M . Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018; 113(5):677-685. DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0025-8. View

2.
Chang K, Nguyen P, Erickson R, Durbin T, Katz K . The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997; 45(5):387-93. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70149-4. View

3.
van Riet P, Erler N, Bruno M, Cahen D . Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020; 53(4):411-423. DOI: 10.1055/a-1206-5552. View

4.
Hikichi T, Irisawa A, Bhutani M, Takagi T, Shibukawa G, Yamamoto G . Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses with rapid on-site cytological evaluation by endosonographers without attendance of cytopathologists. J Gastroenterol. 2009; 44(4):322-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00535-009-0001-6. View

5.
DeWitt J, Devereaux B, Lehman G, Sherman S, Imperiale T . Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography for the preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006; 4(6):717-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.02.020. View