Aims
To assess and compare the diagnostic yield and histologic quality of samples obtained with EchoTip ClearCore™ and Acquire™ needles during EUS-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions.
Methods
A retrospective descriptive–correlational study including 19 patients who met the inclusion criteria and had no exclusion criteria, between June and November 2025. Tumor location, MOSE (visible core), number of passes, histologic quality, complications, and the need for repeat biopsy were evaluated. Differences between groups were assessed using the two-tailed Fisher’s exact test.
Results
The most frequent lesion location was the head/uncinate process (13/19; 68.4%). An adequate visible core (MOSE ≥4 mm) was obtained in all cases. Most procedures required more than one pass (14/19; 73.7%). No post-procedural complications were recorded. High-quality histology (score ≥7) was achieved in 91.7% of samples obtained with the EchoTip ClearCore™ needle, compared with 71.4% with the Acquire™ needle; this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.5232), although the OR favored ClearCore™ (OR = 4.40). The mean number of passes was similar between devices (ClearCore™ 2.58 vs Acquire™ 2.14; p = 1.00). Diagnostic yield was high in both groups: 83.3% for EchoTip ClearCore™ and 100% for Acquire™, with no significant differences (p = 0.5088). No complications were observed in either group.
| EchoTip ClearCore™ | Acquire™ | p | OR | |||
| Tumor location | Head/Uncinate process | 10 (83.3%) | 3 (42.9%) | |||
| Body/Tail | 2 (16.7%) | 4 (57.1%) | 0.1287 | 6.67 | ||
| MOSE (Visible core) | Adequate (≥4 mm) | 12 (100%) | 7 (100%) | |||
| Inadequate (<4 mm) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.00 | |||
| Number of needle passes | 0 (1 pass) | 3 (25%) | 2 (28.6%) | |||
| 1 (>1 pass) | 9 (75%) | 5 (71.4%) | 1.00 | 0.8333 | ||
| Histological quality | High (≥7) | 11 (91.7%) | 5 (71.4%) | |||
| Low (<7) | 1 (8.3%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0.5232 | 4.4 | ||
| Histological diagnosis | Diagnostic | 10 (83.3%) | 7 (100%) | |||
| Non-diagnostic | 2 (16.7%) | 0 (0%) | 0.5088 | |||
| Post-procedural complications | No | 12 (100%) | 7 (100%) | |||
| Yes | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.00 | |||
| Need for repeat biopsy | No | 11 (91.7%) | 6 (85.7%) | |||
| Yes | 1 (8.3%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1.00 | 1.8333 | ||
| Surgical confirmation | No | 12 (100%) | 6 (85.7%) | |||
| Yes | 0 (0%) | 1 (14.3%) | 0.3684 | |||
Conclusions
Both needles demonstrated safety and satisfactory diagnostic performance. No statistically significant association was found between needle type and either histologic sample quality or diagnostic yield. A limitation of the study was the small sample size.