Incremental innovation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy: does the tip make the difference?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions has entered a transformative era. The transition from cytology-focused fine-needle aspiration (FNA) to histology-oriented fine-needle biopsy (FNB) reflects more than incremental engineering refinement—it represents alignment with the demands of precision oncology. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), therapeutic decision-making increasingly depends on preserved tissue architecture, stromal characterization, and adequate nucleic acid yield for next-generation sequencing (NGS). In this context, needle design is no longer a procedural variable—it is an oncologic determinant.

In this issue, Ishikawa and colleagues present a randomized comparison of a conventional Franseen needle and two sharpened-tip three-prong needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions (1). Their study provides rigorous head-to-head evidence in a field historically shaped by retrospective comparisons and heterogeneous endpoints. While all devices achieved high overall tissue acquisition rates, subtle differences in puncture mechanics and procurement characteristics reinforce that geometry can still play a role.

Yet geometry alone is no longer sufficient.

Over the past decade, modern end-cutting FNB needles have consistently outperformed legacy FNA designs in histologic core procurement and diagnostic adequacy (2,3). Diagnostic yields exceeding 90% are now expected benchmarks. However, “diagnostic adequacy” as a binary endpoint has become outdated. Up to 20–25% of pancreatic cancers harbor potentially actionable genomic alterations, and successful profiling requires sufficient tumor cellularity, preserved architecture, and high-quality nucleic acid extraction (4,5). Contemporary prospective data confirm that FNB specimens improve rates of successful molecular profiling compared with cytology-only samples (4). Larger-gauge core needles have further demonstrated enhanced nucleic acid yield and feasibility for organoid development and translational research platforms (6).

Thus, the true metric of needle performance is not simply confirmation of malignancy, but adequacy for comprehensive tumor characterization.

The randomized data from Ishikawa et al. must be interpreted within this expanded framework. Subtle differences in core architecture may translate into meaningful differences in molecular sufficiency. At the same time, tissue acquisition remains an ecosystem: suction strategy, fanning technique, pass number, lesion size, desmoplastic architecture, and operator expertise all influence outcomes (7,8). Recent data suggest that two to three passes with contemporary FNB needles are sufficient for histologic and molecular adequacy in most cases, with diminishing returns beyond that threshold (8). Superiority among needle designs must therefore be demonstrated not only through tissue volume metrics, but through reductions in pass number, improvements in procedural efficiency, and higher rates of successful genomic completion. Additionally, recent discussion regarding macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) during FNB has suggested that it is non-inferior in accuracy to FNB with three needle passes thus adding an additional layer to the tissue acquisition paradigm (9).

While we refine needle geometry, a parallel revolution is unfolding in digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI). Deep learning models are now capable of quantifying tumor cellularity with reproducibility exceeding interobserver variability (10). More recently, foundation AI models trained on histologic images have demonstrated the ability to predict molecular features directly from routine pathology slides (11). Machine learning approaches specific to pancreatic cancer are further advancing prediction of genomic alterations from morphologic patterns (12).

The convergence of optimized needle design with AI-assisted adequacy assessment represents the next frontier. Real-time AI-guided MOSE could determine whether sufficient tumor content has been obtained, signal when additional passes are required, and standardize acquisition quality across operators and centers. In this emerging paradigm, needle architecture becomes one component of a broader intelligence-guided ecosystem designed to minimize variability and maximize molecular success.

Pancreatic cancer demands precision at every step of the therapeutic pathway, and EUS-guided biopsy represents its critical gateway. The next transformation in this space will not be defined solely by incremental refinements in cutting geometry, but by integration—of optimized needle design, standardized acquisition protocols, digital pathology, and AI-driven adequacy assessment.

In the near future, procedural endpoints may be guided in real time by AI systems capable of quantifying tumor cellularity, predicting molecular sufficiency, and signaling when adequate tissue has been obtained. Such integration has the potential to reduce variability across operators and centers, democratize high-quality tissue acquisition, and ensure that every patient enters the precision oncology pathway with actionable data in hand. The future of pancreatic biopsy will not merely be sharper—it will be smarter, standardized, and data-informed.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Annals of Pancreatic Cancer. The article has undergone external peer review.

Peer Review File: Available at https://apc.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apc-26-0022/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://apc.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apc-26-0022/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Ishikawa T, Suzuki H, Hori Y, et al. Randomized trial comparing the Franseen needle versus 2 types of sharpened-tip 3-prong needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2025;102:703-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Facciorusso A, Gkolfakis P, Tziatzios G, et al. Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without rapid on-site evaluation for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2022;11:458-65. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Navaneethan U, et al. Randomized trial comparing the Franseen and Fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:1432-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Crinò SF, Di Mitri R, Nguyen NQ, et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial. Gastroenterology 2021;161:899-909.e5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Ozono Y, Kawakami H, Uchiyama N, et al. Current status and issues in genomic analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens in hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers. J Gastroenterol 2023;58:1081-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Klauss S, Xue Y, Alnatsha A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and Patient Derived Organoid (PDO) yield of 19G vs 22G Franseen needles for EUS-Guided biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective comparative study. Pancreatology 2025;25:1442-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Facciorusso A, Arvanitakis M, Crinò SF, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical and Technology Review. Endoscopy 2025;57:390-418. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. van Riet PA, Larghi A, Attili F, et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing a 25-gauge EUS fine-needle aspiration device with a 20-gauge EUS fine-needle biopsy device. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:329-39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Mangiavillano B, Crinò SF, Facciorusso A, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Endoscopy 2023;55:129-37. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Campanella G, Hanna MG, Geneslaw L, et al. Clinical-grade computational pathology using weakly supervised deep learning on whole slide images. Nat Med 2019;25:1301-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Lu MY, Chen B, Williamson DFK, et al. A multimodal generative AI copilot for human pathology. Nature 2024;634:466-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Mishra AK, Chong B, Arunachalam SP, et al. Machine Learning Models for Pancreatic Cancer Risk Prediction Using Electronic Health Record Data-A Systematic Review and Assessment. Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119:1466-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]