Table 3.
Prospective comparative trials of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy for lymph node biopsy
|
Ref.
|
Study design
|
Number of subjects
|
Needle size (FNA, FNB)
|
Lymph nodes sampled
|
Diagnostic yield/specimen adequacy (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)
|
Diagnostic accuracy (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)
|
Number of needle passes needed (EUS-FNA vs EUS-FNB)
|
Comments
|
| Nagula et al[49], 2018) | RCT | 46 | Variable, variable Procore | All lymph nodes | 92.9% vs 94.4% (NS) | N/A | 2 vs 2 (NS) | |
| de Moura et al[52], 2020) | Retrospective study of prospectively collected data | 209 | Variable, variable | All lymph nodes | N/A | 78.8% vs 83.2% (NS) | N/A | For peri-hepatic lesions, EUS-FNB was significantly more accurate |
EUS-FNA: Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration; EUS-FNB: Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; N/A: Not applicable; NS: Not significant.