Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 14;27(26):4194–4207. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i26.4194

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.