Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy was not more cost-effective than fine-needle aspiration with rapid on-site evaluation in gastrointestinal lesions diagnosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Cost-effectiveness comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided acquisition techniques by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) in gastrointestinal lesions is still scarce. EUS-FNB has been shown to be more cost-effective than EUS-FNA, however, when adding rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) to EUS-FNA, it is unclear whether EUS-FNB remains more cost-effective. Our aim was to assess cost-efficacy of EUS-FNB as compared to EUS-FNA with ROSE in gastrointestinal lesions.

METHOD

All patients who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE or EUS-FNB at Galilee Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the additional EUS sessions needed and on the average cost expenditure to achieve one final pathological diagnosis.

RESULTS

Seventy-four cases were included in the final analysis. Of them, 21 patients (28.4%) were in the EUS-FNB group (group A), as compared to 53 patients (71.6%) who underwent EUS-FNA with ROSE (group B). Additional EUS sessions needed to achieve one final pathological diagnosis were needed in 14.3% of group A patients vs 9.4% in group B patients (P = .5). and, the average cost for achieving one final pathological diagnosis was similar in both groups (1226 ± 369$ for group A vs 1158 ± 309.6.7$ for group B, P = .2). Notably, even after analyzing pancreatic and non-pancreatic gastrointestinal lesions separately, there was no cost benefit of EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA with ROSE.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was not different between EUS-FNB vs EUS-FNA with ROSE. Thus, the preference of one modality over the other should be based on availability and local expertise.