Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The superiority of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) over EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remains controversial. Given the lack of studies analyzing histologic specimens acquired from EUS-FNB or EUS-FNA, we compared the proportion of the histologic core obtained from both techniques. METHODS: A total of 58 consecutive patients with solid mass lesions were enrolled and randomly assigned to the EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB groups. The opposite needle was used after the failure of core tissue acquisition using the initial needle with up to three passes. Using computerized analyses of the scanned histologic slide, the overall area and the area of the histologic core portion in specimens obtained by the two techniques were compared. RESULTS: No significant differences were identified between the two groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics. Fewer needle passes were required to obtain core specimens in the FNB group (p<0.001). There were no differences in the proportion of histologic core (11.8%±19.5% vs 8.0%±11.1%, p=0.376) or in the diagnostic accuracy (80.6% vs 81.5%, p=0.935) between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of histologic core and the diagnostic accuracy were comparable between the FNB and FNA groups. However, fewer needle passes were required to establish an accurate diagnosis in EUS-FNB.