Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
EUS
FNA
FNB
cancer
lymphoma
metastases
Journal
Gastroenterology report
ISSN: 2052-0034
Titre abrégé: Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101620508
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
09
06
2022
revised:
26
07
2022
accepted:
10
10
2022
entrez:
7
11
2022
pubmed:
8
11
2022
medline:
8
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling. We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81-2.10; EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results
UNASSIGNED
We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81-2.10;
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36340808
doi: 10.1093/gastro/goac062
pii: goac062
pmc: PMC9632631
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
goac062Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press and Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.
Références
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Dig Endosc. 2019 Mar;31(2):197-202
pubmed: 30256458
Endosc Int Open. 2021 Jun;9(6):E901-E906
pubmed: 34079874
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Dec;90(6):893-903.e7
pubmed: 31310744
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1294-302
pubmed: 21803546
Endosc Int Open. 2019 Apr;7(4):E504-E513
pubmed: 31044153
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Dec;90(6):995-996
pubmed: 31759423
Dig Dis Sci. 2021 Aug;66(8):2763-2775
pubmed: 32979158
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Oct 21;22(39):8820-8830
pubmed: 27818598
Endoscopy. 2013 Oct;45(10):792-8
pubmed: 24068588
Endosc Int Open. 2019 Oct;7(10):E1221-E1230
pubmed: 31579703
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Sep;92(3):648-658.e2
pubmed: 32433914
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Mar;16(3):318-327
pubmed: 29074447
Ultraschall Med. 2021 Apr;42(2):167-177
pubmed: 31597179
Clin Endosc. 2020 Sep;53(5):600-610
pubmed: 31794654
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 21;23(31):5755-5763
pubmed: 28883701
Ann Gastroenterol. 2020 Nov-Dec;33(6):547-553
pubmed: 33162731
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Jun;91(6):1234-1241.e4
pubmed: 32006546
Gastrointest Endosc. 1994 Jul-Aug;40(4):442-6
pubmed: 7926534
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021 Nov-Dec;10(6):543-557
pubmed: 34088642
Clin Endosc. 2021 Sep;54(5):722-729
pubmed: 33657782
Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Jun;95(6):1067-1077.e15
pubmed: 35124072
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 22;14(2):e0212427
pubmed: 30794598
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Aug 26;13(17):
pubmed: 34503112
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2021 Apr 15;2021:6640862
pubmed: 33936195
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1307-1313.e1
pubmed: 28624647
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jul;15(7):821-828
pubmed: 33481633
Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):899-909.e5
pubmed: 34116031
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021 Oct 15;13(10):1475-1491
pubmed: 34721779
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jun 19;13(12):
pubmed: 34205389