Dataset Information

Diagnostic yield of EUS-guided through-the-needle microforceps biopsy versus EUS-FNA of pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background and study aims Accurate diagnosis and risk stratification of pancreatic cysts (PCs) is challenging. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in PCs. Methods Comprehensive search of databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science) for relevant studies on TTNB of PCs (from inception to June 2019). The primary outcome was to compare the pooled diagnostic yield and concordance rate with surgical pathology of TTNB histology and FNA cytology of PCs. The secondary outcome was to estimate the safety profile of TTNB. Results: Eight studies (426 patients) were included. The diagnostic yield was significantly higher with TTNB over FNA for a specific cyst type (OR: 9.4; 95 % CI: [5.7-15.4]; I 2 = 48) or a mucinous cyst (MC) (OR: 3.9; 95 % CI: [2.0-7.4], I 2 = 72 %). The concordance rate with surgical pathology was significantly higher with TTNB over FNA for a specific cyst type (OR: 13.5; 95 % CI: [3.5-52.3]; I 2 = 48), for a MC (OR: 8.9; 95 % [CI: 1.9-40.8]; I 2 = 29), and for MC histologic severity (OR: 10.4; 95 % CI: [2.9-36.9]; I 2 = 0). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of TTNB for MCs were 90.1 % (95 % CI: [78.4-97.6]; I 2 = 36.5 %) and 94 % (95 % CI: [81.5-99.7]; I 2 = 0), respectively. The pooled adverse event rate was 7.0 % (95 % CI: [2.3-14.1]; I 2 = 82.9). Conclusions TTNB is safe, has a high sensitivity and specificity for MCs and may be superior to FNA cytology in risk-stratifying MCs and providing a specific cyst diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Westerveld DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7164999 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Given variable diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), a through-the-needle (TTN) microforceps biopsy device passed through a 19-gauge FNA needle has been devised to improve tissue sampling. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, diagnostic yield, and safety of EUS-guided TTN microforceps biopsy for diagnosis of PCLs. Methods Individualized searches were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included pooled technical success, diagnostic yield, accuracy, and procedure-associated adverse events (AEs) as well as comparison to conventional FNA. Results Eleven studies (n = 518 patients; mean age 64.13 ± 5.83 years; 58.19 % female) were included. Mean PCL size was 33.39 ± 3.72 mm with the pancreatic head/uncinate (35.50 %) being the most common location. A mean of 2.47 ± 0.92 forceps passes were performed with a mean of 2.79 ± 0.81 microbiopsies obtained per lesion. Pooled technical success was 97.12 % (95 % CI, 93.73-98.71; I 2 = 34.49) with a diagnostic yield of 79.60 % (95 % CI, 72.62-85.16; I 2 = 56.00), and accuracy of 82.76 % [(95 % CI, 77.80-86.80; I 2 = 0.00). The pooled serious adverse event rate was 1.08 % (95 % CI, 0.43-2.69; I 2 = 0.00). Compared to conventional FNA, TTN microforceps biopsy resulted in significant improvement in diagnostic yield [OR 4.79 (95 % CI: 1.52-15.06; P = 0.007)] and diagnostic accuracy [OR 8.69 (95 % CI, 1.12-67.12; P = 0.038)], respectively. Conclusions EUS-guided TTN microforceps biopsy appears to be safe and effective for diagnosis of PCLs with improvement in diagnostic yield and accuracy when compared to FNA alone.

Project description:Background and aimsAlthough conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.MethodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.ResultsTwo hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.ConclusionsEUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.