Needle Selection Strategy for EUS-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 22-Gauge Needles in Small Pancreatic Solid Lesions.

Authors

Akashi Fujita, Shomei Ryozawa, Masafumi Mizuide, Yuki Tanisaka, Suguru Ito, Ryuichi Watanabe, Ryosuke Hamamura, Yoshiki Matsuno

Published in

Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan). Jul 11, 2026. Epub Jul 11, 2026.

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the needle selection process for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) using 22-gauge needles in pancreatic solid lesions ≤20 mm. Methods Consecutive patients with pancreatic solid lesions ≤20 mm who underwent EUS-TA were retrospectively reviewed at a referral center. Only procedures that used 22-gauge needles were included. The overall diagnostic accuracy was compared between the fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) groups. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score-matched analyses were performed. Patients or Materials A total of 348 patients with pancreatic solid lesions ≤20 mm were included (FNA, n=193; FNB, n=155). Results No statistically significant difference in the overall diagnostic accuracy was observed between the FNA and FNB groups (92.7% vs. 95.5%, p=0.27). The median number of needle passes was lower in the FNB group (2 vs. 3, p<0.001), and the histological yield was higher (92.9% vs. 84.5%, p=0.019). The needle type was not independently associated with diagnostic accuracy (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.69-4.52; p=0.24). In lesions measuring ≤10 mm, subgroup analysis was limited by the small sample size of the study. The rarly adverse event rates were low in both groups. Conclusion In pancreatic solid lesions ≤20 mm, FNB showed a higher histological yield and required fewer needle passes, whereas no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy was observed between FNA and FNB. Therefore, the routine replacement of FNA with FNB may not be justified when benign-malignant differentiation is sufficient. FNB may be preferable when histological architecture or immunohistochemical evaluation is required and is considered technically feasible.

PMID:
42438026
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 13 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.