Cargando…
Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7430907/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31031330 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_4_19 |
_version_ | 1783571507085049856 |
---|---|
author | Facciorusso, Antonio Bajwa, Harshvardhan Singh Menon, Kavitha Buccino, Vincenzo Rosario Muscatiello, Nicola |
author_facet | Facciorusso, Antonio Bajwa, Harshvardhan Singh Menon, Kavitha Buccino, Vincenzo Rosario Muscatiello, Nicola |
author_sort | Facciorusso, Antonio |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7430907 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74309072020-08-26 Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis Facciorusso, Antonio Bajwa, Harshvardhan Singh Menon, Kavitha Buccino, Vincenzo Rosario Muscatiello, Nicola Endosc Ultrasound Review Article 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7430907/ /pubmed/31031330 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_4_19 Text en Copyright: © 2020 SPRING MEDIA PUBLISHING CO. LTD http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Facciorusso, Antonio Bajwa, Harshvardhan Singh Menon, Kavitha Buccino, Vincenzo Rosario Muscatiello, Nicola Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis |
title | Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison between 22g aspiration and 22g biopsy needles for eus-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7430907/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31031330 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_4_19 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT facciorussoantonio comparisonbetween22gaspirationand22gbiopsyneedlesforeusguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsametaanalysis AT bajwaharshvardhansingh comparisonbetween22gaspirationand22gbiopsyneedlesforeusguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsametaanalysis AT menonkavitha comparisonbetween22gaspirationand22gbiopsyneedlesforeusguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsametaanalysis AT buccinovincenzorosario comparisonbetween22gaspirationand22gbiopsyneedlesforeusguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsametaanalysis AT muscatiellonicola comparisonbetween22gaspirationand22gbiopsyneedlesforeusguidedsamplingofpancreaticlesionsametaanalysis |