Dataset Information

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (GI) SELs; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search from January 2020 to January 2022 was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of MIAB and EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs.

Results

Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.04) and procedural time (mean difference=-4.53 seconds; 95% CI, -22.38 to 13.31] were comparable between both the groups. The overall chance of obtaining a positive diagnostic yield was lower with EUS than with MIAB for all lesions (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98) but comparable when using a fine-needle biopsy needle (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04). The positive diagnostic yield of MIAB was higher for lesions <20 mm (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89). Six studies reported no adverse events.

Conclusion

MIAB can be considered an effective alternative to EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs without an increased risk of adverse events.

SUBMITTER: Giri S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9539302 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Giri Suprabhat S Afzalpurkar Shivaraj S Angadi Sumaswi S Sundaram Sridhar S

Clinical endoscopy 20220804 5

<h4>Background/aims</h4>Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (GI) SELs; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>A comprehensive literature search from January 2020 to January 2022 was performed to compare the diagn ...[more]

PMID: 36205045

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Traditionally in the case of a vascular interposition, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been contraindicated. A transvascular route (TV) is feasible and probably a safe alternative approach in selected patients, but data are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS-TV-FNA in thoracic and abdominal lesions. Secondary aims included evaluation of the clinical impact and technical aspects. Patients and methods A retrospective multicenter study was conducted with inclusion of all consecutive patients that underwent EUS-TV-FNA from July 2007 to January 2020. Feasibility, cytopathology, procedure details, and safety were evaluated. Univariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with incidents, cytopathological diagnosis, and clinical impact. Results Data were collected from a total of 49 cases and 50 EUS-TV-FNAs. The aorta (n = 19) and portal system (n = 17) were the most frequently punctured. The most frequent lesions were mediastinal lymph nodes (n = 13) and pancreatic tumors (n = 11). The diagnostic yield was 86 %, and there were nondiagnostic samples in seven cases. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88 % (95 %CI,0.74-0.96), 100 % (95 %CI,0.59-1), and 90 % (95 %CI,0.78-0.96), respectively. Only three incidents were detected: two mural hematomas and a self-limited bleeding of gastroduodenal artery. In most patients, there was a significant impact on clinical management (88 %). Arterial vessel and ASA-III had a trend with incidents (both, P < 0.08). Rapid on-site evlauation was found to be an independent predictor for obtaining a conclusive sample (OR 6.2; 95 %CI, 1.06-36.73, P < 0.04). Conclusions EUS-TV-FNA is feasible, seems to be safe, and can be recommended when no other targets are available, and the information obtained would impact on the clinical plan.

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.

Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic laparoscopy is often a necessary, albeit invasive, procedure to help resolve undiagnosed peritoneal diseases. Previous retrospective studies reported that EUS-FNA is feasible on peritoneal and omental lesions, however, EUS-FNA provided a limited amount of tissue for immunohistochemistry stain (IHC).AimThis pilot study aims to prospectively determine the effectiveness of EUS-FNB regarding adequacy of tissue for IHC staining, diagnostic rate and the avoidance rate of diagnostic laparoscopy or percutaneous biopsy in patients with these lesions.MethodsFrom March 2017 to June 2018, patients with peritoneal or omental lesions identified by CT or MRI at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were prospectively enrolled in the study. All Patients underwent EUS-FNB. For those with negative pathological results of EUS-FNB, percutaneous biopsy or diagnostic laparoscopy was planned. Analysis uses percentages only due to small sample sizes.ResultsA total of 30 EUS-FNB passes were completed, with a median of 3 passes (range 2-3 passes) per case. For EUS-FNB, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions were 63.6%, 100%, 100%, 20% and 66.7% respectively. Adequate tissue for IHC stain was found in 25/30 passes (80%). The tissues from EUS results were found malignant in 7/12 patients (58.3%). IHC could be done in 10/12 patients (83.3%). Among the five patients with negative EUS results, two underwent either liver biopsy of mass or abdominal paracentesis, showing gallbladder cancer and adenocarcinoma. Two patients refused laparoscopy due to advanced pancreatic cancer and worsening ovarian cancer. The fifth patient had post-surgical inflammation only with spontaneous resolution. The avoidance rate of laparoscopic diagnosis was 58.3%. No major adverse event was observed.ConclusionsEUS-FNB from peritoneal lesions provided sufficient core tissue for diagnosis and IHC. Diagnostic laparoscopy can often be avoided in patients with peritoneal lesions.

Dataset Information

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background/aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets