Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis.
Accuracy
EUS
FNA
fine-needle biopsy
pancreas
sensitivity
Journal
Endoscopic ultrasound
ISSN: 2303-9027
Titre abrégé: Endosc Ultrasound
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101622292
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
30
4
2019
medline:
30
4
2019
entrez:
30
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robust data in favor of clear superiority of 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over 22G FNA for an echoendoscopic-guided sampling of pancreatic masses are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes and sample adequacy of these two needles. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed and restricted to only randomized controlled trials. Summary estimates were expressed regarding risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. A total of 11 trials with 833 patients were analyzed. The two needles resulted comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy (RR 1.02, 0.97-1.08; P = 0.46), sample adequacy (RR 1.01, 0.96-1.06; P = 0.61), and histological core procurement (RR 1.01, 0.89-1.15; P = 0.86). Pooled sensitivity in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 93.1% (87.9%-98.4%) and 90.4% (86.3%-94.5%) with biopsy and aspirate, respectively, whereas specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer was 100% with both needles. Analysis of the number of needle passes showed a nonsignificantly positive trend in favor of FNB (mean difference: -0.32, -0.66-0.02; P = 0.07). Our meta-analysis stands for a nonsuperiority of 22G FNB over 22G FNA; hence, no definitive recommendations on the use of a particular device can be made.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Robust data in favor of clear superiority of 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over 22G FNA for an echoendoscopic-guided sampling of pancreatic masses are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes and sample adequacy of these two needles.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed and restricted to only randomized controlled trials. Summary estimates were expressed regarding risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 11 trials with 833 patients were analyzed. The two needles resulted comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy (RR 1.02, 0.97-1.08; P = 0.46), sample adequacy (RR 1.01, 0.96-1.06; P = 0.61), and histological core procurement (RR 1.01, 0.89-1.15; P = 0.86). Pooled sensitivity in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 93.1% (87.9%-98.4%) and 90.4% (86.3%-94.5%) with biopsy and aspirate, respectively, whereas specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer was 100% with both needles. Analysis of the number of needle passes showed a nonsignificantly positive trend in favor of FNB (mean difference: -0.32, -0.66-0.02; P = 0.07).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis stands for a nonsuperiority of 22G FNB over 22G FNA; hence, no definitive recommendations on the use of a particular device can be made.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31031330
pii: 257292
doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_4_19
pmc: PMC7430907
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
167-174Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2017 Aug;13(8):496-499
pubmed: 28867982
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jan;53(1):94-99
pubmed: 29065734
Endosc Int Open. 2017 May;5(5):E363-E375
pubmed: 28497108
United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Oct;5(6):846-853
pubmed: 29026598
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar;97(13):e0207
pubmed: 29595661
Gut. 2018 Dec;67(12):2081-2084
pubmed: 28988195
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jun;87(6):1432-1438
pubmed: 29305893
Ann Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul-Aug;31(4):513-518
pubmed: 29991898
N Am J Med Sci. 2016 Jan;8(1):1-11
pubmed: 27011940
Endoscopy. 2013 Oct;45(10):792-8
pubmed: 24068588
Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-41
pubmed: 20171303
Dig Endosc. 2019 Mar;31(2):197-202
pubmed: 30256458
Diagn Cytopathol. 2017 May;45(5):426-432
pubmed: 28261978
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Feb;15(2):127-135
pubmed: 29334842
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1314-1321
pubmed: 28733257
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0121236
pubmed: 25793739
Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;49(10):989-1006
pubmed: 28898917
Endosc Ultrasound. 2014 Apr;3(Suppl 1):S11
pubmed: 26425507
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Aug;76(2):321-7
pubmed: 22658389
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1307-1313.e1
pubmed: 28624647
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Endoscopy. 2016 Apr;48(4):339-49
pubmed: 26561917
United European Gastroenterol J. 2015 Aug;3(4):343-52
pubmed: 26279842
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jul 28;20(28):9451-7
pubmed: 25071339
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan 14;22(2):628-40
pubmed: 26811612
Ann Transl Med. 2018 Jul;6(13):266
pubmed: 30094252
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Oct 21;22(39):8820-8830
pubmed: 27818598
Gut Liver. 2017 Jul 15;11(4):559-566
pubmed: 28208006
Korean J Intern Med. 2016 Nov;31(6):1073-1083
pubmed: 27586867
Endoscopy. 2014 Dec;46(12):1063-70
pubmed: 25098612
Endoscopy. 2014 Dec;46(12):1056-62
pubmed: 25098611