Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is preferred for sampling of lymph nodes (LNs) adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall; however, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide improved diagnostic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of FNA versus FNB for LN sampling. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study of prospectively collected data to evaluate outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for LN sampling. Characteristics analyzed included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell-block analysis, and adverse events. Results: A total of 209 patients underwent EUS-guided LN sampling. The mean lesion size was 16.22±8.03 mm, with similar sensitivity and accuracy between FNA and FNB ([67.21% vs. 75.00%, respectively, p=0.216] and [78.80% vs. 83.17%, respectively, p=0.423]). The specificity of FNB was better than that of FNA (100.00% vs. 93.62%, p=0.01). The number of passes required for diagnosis was not different. Abdominal and peri-hepatic LN location demonstrated FNB to have a higher sensitivity (81.08% vs. 64.71%, p=0.031 and 80.95% vs. 58.33%, p=0.023) and accuracy (88.14% vs. 75.29%, p=0.053 and 88.89% vs. 70.49%, p=0.038), respectively. ROSE was a significant predictor for accuracy (odds ratio, 5.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–23.08; p=0.032). No adverse events were reported in either cohort. Conclusions Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are safe for the diagnosis of LNs. EUS-FNB is preferred for abdominal LN sampling. EUSFNA+ ROSE was similar to EUS-FNB alone, showing better diagnosis for EUS-FNB than traditional FNA. While ROSE remained a significant predictor for accuracy, due to its poor availability in most centers, its use may be limited to cases with previous inconclusive diagnoses.

Background/Aims: The endoscopic management of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)-associated dominant strictures remains challenging. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare balloon dilation and stent placement in the treatment of dominant strictures among PSC patients. Methods: Literature searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Lilacs/Bireme were performed for studies published until December 2020. Measured outcomes included clinical efficacy, stricture recurrence, cumulative recurrencefree rate, transplant rate, 5-year survival rate, and adverse events (i.e., pancreatitis, cholangitis, bleeding, perforation and death). Results: A total of 5 studies (n=467) were included. Based on pooled analyses, there were no differences in clinical efficacy (risk difference [RD], -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to 0.33; I2=93%) or transplant rates (RD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.01; I2=0%); however, the risk of occurrence of adverse events was lower with balloon dilatation than with stent placement (RD,-0.34; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.23; I2=61%). Among the types of adverse events reported, only the rates of cholangitis/bacteremia were significantly lower in balloon dilation patients (RD, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.13; I2=51%). Conclusions Compared to balloon dilation, stent placement for dominant strictures in PSC appeared to have higher complication rates without significant differences in efficacy.