Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high,especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE),and it has a high safety profile.However,FNA presents some limitations,such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture,which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis,molecular profiling and,therefore,targeted therapies.Moreover,the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique;however,it is not widely available,especially in small centers.Hence,the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles,which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE,could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA.However,FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA.Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB,the different types of needle currently available,comparisons in term of diagnostic yield,and the different techniques of sampling,a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.

Diagnostic utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fineneedle aspiration biopsy for glomus tumor of the stomach

A 52-year-old man was referred for further investigation of a gastric submucosal tumor on the greater curvature of the antrum. Endoscopic ultrasonography demonstrated a hypoechoic solid mass, which was primarily connected to the muscular layer of the stomach. We performed endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. The pathological examination showed proliferation of oval-shaped cells with nest formation, which stained strongly positive for muscle actin, and negative for c-kit, CD34, CD56,desmin, S-100, chromogranin, and neuron-specific enolase. Therefore, we performed laparoscopy and endoscopy cooperative surgery based on the preoperative diagnosis of glomus tumor of the stomach. The final histological diagnosis confirmed the preoperative diagnosis. Although preoperative diagnosis of glomus tumor of the stomach is difficult with conventional images and endoscopic biopsy, endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine-needle aspiration biopsy is an essential tool to gain histological evidence of glomus tumor of the stomach for early diagnosis.

Concise review on the comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration vs core biopsy in pancreatic masses, upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors

Endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration with or without biopsy(FNA/FNB) are the primary diagnostic tools for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) is considered a first line diagnostic method for the characterization of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal lesions, since it allows for the direct visualization of the collection of specimens for cytopathologic analysis. EUSFNA is most effective and accurate when immediate cytologic assessment is permitted by the presence of a cytopathologist on site. Unfortunately, the accuracy and thus the diagnostic yield of collected specimens suffer without this immediate analysis. Recently, a EUS-FNB needle capable of obtaining core samples(fine needle biopsy, FNB) has been developed and has shown promising results. This new tool adds a new dimension to the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of this technique. The aim of the present review is to compare the efficacy of EUS-FNA to that afforded by EUS-FNB in the characterization of pancreatic masses and of upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for pancreatic masses,subepithelial lesions,and lymph nodes

Endoscopic ultrasound tissue acquisition,in the form of both fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)and fine needle biopsy(EUS-FNB),is utilized for pancreatic mass lesions,subepithelial lesions,and lymph node biopsy.Both procedures are safe and yield high diagnostic value.Despite its high diagnostic yield,EUS-FNA has potential limitations associated with cytological aspirations,including inability to determine histologic architecture,and a small quantitative sample for further immunohistochemical staining.EUS-FNB,with its larger core biopsy needle,was designed to overcome these potential limitations.However,it remains unclear which technique should be used and for which lesions.Comparative trials are plagued by heterogeneity at every stage of comparison;including variable needles used,and different definitions of endpoints,which therefore limit generalizability.Thus,we present a review of prospective trials,systematic reviews,and meta-analyses on studies examining EUS-FNA vs EUSFNB.Prospective comparative trials of EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB primarily focus on pancreatic mass lesions,and yield conflicting results in terms of demonstrating the superiority of one method.However,consistent among trials is the potential for diagnosis with fewer passes,and a larger quantity of sample achieved for next generation sequencing.With regard to subepithelial lesions and lymph node biopsy,fewer prospective trials exist,and larger prospective studies are necessary.Based on the available literature,we would recommend EUS-FNB for peri-hepatic lymph nodes.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy-Recent topics and technical tips

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is a useful procedure that enables reliable pathological diagnoses of pancreatobiliary diseases, subepithelial lesions, and swollen lymph nodes. In recent years, a pathological diagnosis based on EUS-FNA has made it possible to provide accurate treatment methods not only in these fields, but also in respiratory organs and otorhinolaryngology. This review discusses the latest topics pertaining to EUS-FNA as well as procedural tips.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions:A multi-center analysis

BACKGROUND While endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration(FNA)is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions,fine needle biopsy(FNB)has recently been developed.AIM To compare the accuracy of FNB vs FNA in determining the diagnosis of solid lesions.METHODS A retrospective,multi-center study of EUS-guided tissue sampling using FNA vs FNB needles.Measured outcomes included diagnostic test characteristics(i.e.,sensitivity,specificity,accuracy),use of rapid on-site evaluation(ROSE),and adverse events.Subgroup analyses were performed by type of lesion and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE.A multivariable logistic regression was also performed.RESULTS A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions(n=468 FNA;n=700 FNB)underwent EUS-guided sampling.Mean age was 65.02±12.13 years.Overall,sensitivity,specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA(84.70%vs 74.53%;99.29%vs 96.62%;and 87.62%vs 81.55%,respectively;P<0.001).On subgroup analyses,sensitivity,specificity,and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA+ROSE[(81.66%vs 86.45%;P=0.142),(100%vs 100%;P=1.00)and(88.40%vs 85.43%;P=0.320].There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB+ROSE(P>0.05).Multivariate analysis showed no significant predictor for better accuracy.On subgroup analyses,FNB was superior to FNA for non-pancreatic lesions;however,there was no difference between the techniques among pancreatic lesions.One adverse event was reported in each group.CONCLUSION FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA+ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions.Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.

Percutaneous ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: An analysis of 1074 lesions

Backgrounds:Percutaneous ultrasound(US)and endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided pancreatic biopsies are widely accepted in the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases.Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of US-and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies are lacking.This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields of US-and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsies and identify the risk factors for inconclusive biopsies.Methods:Of the 1074 solid pancreatic lesions diagnosed from January 2017 to February 2021 in our center,275 underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA),and 799 underwent US-guided core needle biopsy(US-CNB/FNA).The outcomes were inconclusive pathological biopsy,diagnostic accuracy and the need for repeat biopsy.All of the included factors and diagnostic performances of both USCNB/FNA and EUS-FNA were compared,and the independent predictors for the study outcomes were identified.Results:The diagnostic accuracy was 89.8%for EUS-FNA and 95.2%for US-CNB/FNA(P=0.001).Biopsy under EUS guidance[odds ratio(OR)=1.808,95%confidence interval(CI):1.083-3.019;P=0.024],lesion size<2 cm(OR=2.069,95%CI:1.145-3.737;P=0.016),hypoechoic appearance(OR=0.274,95%CI:0.097-0.775;P=0.015)and non-pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma carcinoma(PDAC)diagnosis(OR=2.637,95%CI:1.563-4.449;P<0.001)were identified as factors associated with inconclusive pathological biopsy.Hypoechoic appearance(OR=0.236,95%CI:0.064-0.869;P=0.030),lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas(OR=3.506,95%CI:1.831-6.713;P<0.001)and non-PDAC diagnosis(OR=2.622,95%CI:1.278-5.377;P=0.009)were independent predictors for repeat biopsy.Biopsy under EUS guidance(OR=2.024,95%CI:1.195-3.429;P=0.009),lesions in the uncinate process of the pancreas(OR=1.776,95%CI:1.014-3.108;P=0.044)and hypoechoic appearance(OR=0.127,95%CI:0.047-0.347;P<0.001)were associated with diagnostic accuracy.Conclusions:In conclusion,both percutaneous US-and EUS-guided biopsies of solid pancreatic lesions are safe and effective;though the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is inferior to US-CNB/FNA.A tailored pancreatic biopsy should be considered a part of the management algorithm for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic disease.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for diagnosis of pancreatic masses

AIM： To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of histological evaluation of pancreatic tissue samples obtained by a modified method for recovering and processing the endoscopic ultrasound （EUS）-guided fine needle aspiration （FNA） material in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. METHODS： Sixty-two consecutive patients with pancreatic masses were prospectively studied. EUS was performed by the linear scanning Pentax FG-38UX echoendoscope. Three FNAs （22G needle） were carried out during each procedure. The materials obtained with first and second punctures were processed for cytological study. Haterials of the third puncture were recovered into 10% formol solution by careful injection of saline solution through the needle, and processed for histological study. RESULTS： Length of the core specimen obtained for histological analysis was 6.5±5.3 mm （range 1-22 mm）. Cytological and histological samples were considered as adequate in 51 （82.3%） and 52 cases （83.9%）, respectively. Overall sensitivity of both pancreatic cytology and histology for diagnosis of malignancy was 68.4%. Conbary to cytology, histology was able to diagnose tumours other than adenocarcinomas, and all cases of inflammatory masses. Combination of cytology and histology allowed obtaining an adequate sample in 56 cases （90.3%）, with a global sensitivity of 84.21%, specificity of 100% and an overall accuracy of 90.32%. The complication rate was 1.6%.CONCLUSION： Adequate pancreatic core specimens for histological examination can be obtained by EUS-guided FNA. This technique is mainly useful for the diagnosis of different types of pancreatic tumours and evaluation of benign diseases.

Ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cancer diagnosis

AIM: To clarify the effectiveness and safety of endo- scopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic PC between February 2006 and September 2011 were selected for this retrospective study. FNA biopsy for pancreatic tumors had been performed percutaneously under extracorporeal ultrasound guidance until October 2009; then, beginning in November 2009, EUS-FNA has been performed. We reviewed the complete medical records of all patients who met the selection criteria for the following data: sex, age, location and size of the targeted tumor, histological and/or cytological findings, details of puncture procedures, time from day of puncture until day of definitive diagnosis, and details of severe adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients who met the selection criteria, 46 had a percutaneous biopsy (Group A) and 75 had an EUS-FNA biopsy (Group B). Adequate cytological specimens were obtained in 42 Group A patients (91.3%) and all 75 Group B patients (P=0.0192), and histological specimens were obtained in 41 Group A patients (89.1%) and 65 Group B patients (86.7%). Diagnosis of malignancy by cytology was positive in 33 Group A patients (78.6%) and 72 Group B patients (94.6%) (P=0.0079). Malignancy by both cytology and pathology was found in 43 Group A (93.5%) and 73 Group B (97.3%) patients. The mean period from the puncture until the cytological diagnosis in Group B was 1.7 d, which was significantly shorter than that in Group A (4.1 d) (P < 0.0001). Severe adverse events were experienced in two Group A patients (4.3%) and in one Group B patient (1.3%). CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA, as well as percutaneous needle aspiration, is an effective modality to obtain cytopathological confirmation in patients with advanced PC.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration:Technique and applications in clinical practice

Since its initial report in 1992,endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) has now been incorporated into the diagnostic and staging algorithm for the evaluation of benign and malignant diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and of adjacent organs.Its introduction constitutes a major breakthrough in the endoscopic field and has gradually transformed EUS from a pure imaging modality into a more interventional procedure.In addition,the possibility of collecting samples,providing a definitive cytological and/or histological evidence of the presence of malignancy,has strongly contributed to changing EUS from a subjective,highly operator dependant procedure into a more objective one.This article will review the instrumentation,technique and the most important clinical applications of EUS-FNA.

Peritoneal dissemination of pancreatic cancer caused by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration:A case report and literature review

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)is a biopsy technique widely used to diagnose pancreatic tumors because of its high sensitivity and specificity.Although needle-tract seeding caused by EUS-FNA has been recently reported,dissemination of pancreatic cancer cells is generally considered to be a rare complication that does not affect patient prognosis.However,the frequency of dissemination and needle-tract seeding appears to have been underestimated.We present a case of peritoneal dissemination of pancreatic cancer due to preoperative EUS-FNA.CASE SUMMARY An 81-year-old man was referred to the Department of Surgery of our hospital in Japan owing to the detection of a pancreatic mass on computed tomography during medical screening.Trans-gastric EUS-FNA revealed that the mass was an adenocarcinoma;hence laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with lymphadenectomy was performed.No intraoperative peritoneal dissemination and liver metastasis were visually detected,and pelvic lavage cytology was negative for carcinoma cells.The postoperative surgical specimen was negative for carcinoma cells at the dissected margin and the cut end margin;however,pathological findings revealed adenocarcinoma cells on the peritoneal surface proximal to the needle puncture site,and the cells were suspected to be disseminated via EUSFNA.Hence,the patient received adjuvant therapy with S-1(tegafur,gimeracil,and oteracil potassium);however,computed tomography performed 5 mo after surgery revealed liver metastasis and cancerous peritonitis.The patient received palliative therapy and died 8 mo after the operation.CONCLUSION The indications of EUS-FNA should be carefully considered to avoid iatrogenic dissemination,especially for cancers in the pancreatic body or tail.

Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy with histology specimen processing

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy(EUS-FNB)has emerged as a safe,efficacious alternative to fine needle aspiration(FNA)for tissue acquisition.EUS-FNB is reported to have higher diagnostic yield while preserving specimen tissue architecture.However,data on the optimal method of EUS-FNB specimen processing is limited.AIM To evaluate EUS-FNB with specimen processing as histology vs EUS-FNA cytology with regards to diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy.METHODS All EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB performed at our institution from July 1,2016,to January 31,2018,were retrospectively analyzed.We collected data on demographics,EUS findings,pathology,clinical outcomes,and procedural complications in two periods,July 2016 through March 2017,and April 2017 through January 2018,with predominant use of FNB in the second data collection time period.FNA specimens were processed as cytology with cell block technique and reviewed by a cytopathologist;FNB specimens were fixed in formalin,processed for histopathologic analysis and immunohistochemical staining,and reviewed by an anatomic pathologist.Final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology when available,repeat biopsy or imaging,and length of clinical follow up.RESULTS One hundred six EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB procedures were performed.FNA alone was performed in 17 patients;in 56 patients,FNB alone was done;and in 33 patients,both FNA and FNB were performed.For all indications,diagnostic yield was 47.1%(8/17)in FNA alone cases,85.7%(48/56)in FNB alone cases,and 84.8%(28/33)in cases where both FNA and FNB were performed(P=0.0039).Specimens were adequate for pathologic evaluation in 52.9%(9/17)of FNA alone cases,in 89.3%(50/56)of FNB alone cases,and 84.8%(28/33)in cases where FNA with FNB were performed(P=0.0049).Tissue could not be aspirated for cytology in 10.0%(5/50)of cases where FNA was done,while in 3.4%(3/89)of FNB cases,tissue could not be obtained for histology.In patients who underwent FNA with FNB,there was a statistically significant difference in both specimen adequacy(P=0.0455)and diagnostic yield(P=0.0455)between the FNA and FNB specimens(processed correspondingly as cytology or histology).CONCLUSION EUS-FNB has a higher diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy than EUS-FNA.In our experience,specimen processing as histology may have contributed to the overall increased diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB.

The Role of a Pre-Fine Needle Aspiration Clinic in Improving the Quality of Thyroid Nodule Investigation in Saskatchewan

Background: The Canadian province of Saskatchewan introduced a pre-fine needle aspiration (FNA) clinic to review adherence of referrals for thyroid biopsy based on the guidelines of the American College of Radiology’s (ACR) Thyroid Imaging, Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) scoring system. The intention is to minimize low-yield biopsy rates by improving the quality of thyroid nodule investigation in Saskatchewan through this clinic. TI-RADS is a malignancy risk scoring system for thyroid nodules based on five sonographic characteristics: composition, echogenicity, shape, margin, and echogenic foci (calcium). Recommendations for intervention or clinical follow-up are further determined by the size of the nodule. Methods: Through a retrospective chart review of all thyroid biopsy referrals to the Royal University Hospital (RUH) in Saskatchewan between 22 March 2016 and 17 May 2018, the impact of the multidisciplinary pre-FNA clinic on appropriate thyroid biopsies in Saskatchewan was evaluated. Results: This study evaluated 252 referrals, 203 of which underwent FNA and 23 which received surgical biopsy. TI-RADS scores appended to thyroid biopsy referrals increased upon pre-FNA clinic initiation, yet score quality did not improve. Rates of malignant biopsies were lower than ACR-reporting suggesting inappropriate biopsy of low risk nodules perhaps by overcalling the TI-RADS score. The majority of FNA cytology matched final surgical pathology, with 78% of indeterminate FNAs being malignant, and all non-diagnostic FNAs being benign. Conclusions: The implementation of the pre-FNA clinic reduced the number of thyroid biopsies in Saskatchewan by 11% overall.

22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses

AIM To compare the aspiration needle(AN) and core biopsy needle(PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.METHODS Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge(G) AN(Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22 G PC(Echo Tip Pro Core; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.RESULTS Fifty six consecutive patients(29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions(n = 38), lymphadenopathy(n = 13), submucosal tumors(n = 4), or others lesions(n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy(AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy(AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes(AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications(none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36(64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.CONCLUSION Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.

Endoscopic ultrasound-through-the-needle biopsy in pancreatic cystic lesions: A large single center experience

BACKGROUND Establishing a diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions(PCLs)preoperatively still remains challenging.Recently,endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-through-the-needle biopsy(EUS-TTNB)using microforceps in PCLs has been made available.AIM To assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-TTNB in the diagnosis of PCLs.METHODS We retrospectively collected data of patients with PCLs who underwent both EUS-fine-needle aspiration(FNA)for cytology and EUS-TTNB at our institution since 2016.EUS-FNA for cytology was followed by EUS-TTNB in the same session.Evaluation of the cyst location,primary diagnosis,adverse events,and comparison between the cytologic fluid analyses and histopathology was performed.Technical success of EUS-TTNB was defined as visible tissue present after biopsy.Clinical success was defined as the presence of a specimen adequate to make a histologic or cytologic diagnosis.RESULTS A total of 56 patients(mean age 66.9±11.7,53.6%females)with PCLs were enrolled over the study period.The mean cyst size was 28.8 mm(12-85 mm).The EUS-TTNB procedure was technically successful in all patients(100%).The clinical success rate using EUS-TTNB was much higher than standard EUS-FNA,respectively 80.4%(45/56)vs 25%(14/56).Adverse events occurred in 2 patients(3.6%)who developed mild pancreatitis that resolved with medical therapy.Using TTNB specimens,23 of 32 cases(71.9%)with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm were further differentiated into gastric type(19 patients)and pancreaticobiliary type(4 patients)based on immunochemical staining.CONCLUSION EUS-TTNB for PCLs was technically feasible and had a favorable safety profile.Furthermore,the diagnostic yield for PCLs was much higher with EUS-TTNB than standard EUS-FNA cytology and fluid carcinoembryonic antigen.EUSTTNB should be considered as an adjunct to EUS-FNA and cytologic analysis in the diagnosis and management of PCLs.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle tissue acquisition:Where we stand in 2013?

Since its introduction,endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)guided fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy have become an indispensable tool for the diagnosis of lesions within the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs.It has proved to be an effective diagnostic method with high accuracy and low complication rates.Several factors can influence the accuracy and the diagnostic yield of this procedure including experience of the endosonographer,availability of onsite cytopathology services,the method of cytopathology preparation,the location and physical characteristics of the lesion,sampling techniques and the type and size of the needle used.In this review we will outline the recent studies evaluating EUS-guided tissue acquisition and will provide practical recommendations to maximize tissue yield.

Two methods of lung biopsy for histological confirmation of acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia:A case report

BACKGROUND Acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia(AFOP)is a rare,noninfective lung disease,histologically characterized by a patchy distribution of intra-alveolar fibrin“balls”and organizing pneumonia.The clinical manifestations of AFOP are nonspecific.Diagnosis depends on pathology.Surgical lung biopsy is optimal for tissue sampling to diagnose AFOP.However,many patients have no tolerance to the operation,including mentally and physically.There is still no standard therapy for AFOP and the methods remain controversial.Therefore,further clinical attention and discussion are warranted.CASE SUMMARY A 53-year-old woman presented with fever,cough and dyspnea for 15 d.Antiinfective therapy was ineffective.Chest computed tomography showed bilateral patchy consolidation,especially in the lower lobes.We performed both ultrasound-guided transbronchial lung biopsy and ultrasound-guided percutaneous fine needle puncture at different lung lesion locations.Both samples supported the diagnosis of AFOP.The patient had a good clinical course after treatment with methylprednisolone,and no side effects of steroids.CONCLUSION Percutaneous needle biopsy combined with transbronchial lung biopsies may be a good choice in the absence of surgical biopsy.Methylprednisolone alone is effective in the treatment of idiopathic AFOP.

Is there a difference between 19G core biopsy needle and 22G core biopsy needle in diagnosing the correct etiology?——A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM To compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultra-sonography(EUS) 19 G core biopsies and 22 G core biopsies in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid mass.METHODS Articles were searched in Medline, Pub Med, and Ovid journals. Pooling was conducted by both fixed and random effects models. RESULTS Initial search identified 4460 reference articles for 19 G and 22 G, of these 670 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from 6 studies for 19G(n = 289) and 16 studies for 22G(n = 592) which met the inclusion criteria. EUS 19 G core biopsies had a pooled sensitivity of 91.6%(95%CI: 87.1-95.0) and pooled specificity of 95.9%(95%CI: 88.6-99.2), whereas EUS 22 G had a pooled sensitivity of 83.3%(95%CI: 79.7-86.6) and pooled specificity of 64.3%(95%CI: 54.7-73.1). The positive likelihood ratio of EUS 19 G core biopsies was 9.08(95%CI: 1.12-73.66) and EUS 22 G core biopsies was 1.99(95%CI: 1.09-3.66).The negative likelihood ratio of EUS 19 G core biopsies was 0.12(95%CI: 0.07-0.24) and EUS 22 G core biopsies was 0.25(95%CI: 0.14-0.41). The diagnostic odds ratio was 84.74(95%CI: 18.31-392.26) for 19 G core biopsies and 10.55(95% CI: 3.29-33.87) for 22 G needles. CONCLUSION EUS 19 G core biopsies have an excellent diagnostic value and seem to be better than EUS 22 G biopsies in detecting the correct etiology for a solid mass.