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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Facciorusso, Antonio, Bajwa, Harshvardhan Singh, Menon, Kavitha, Buccino, Vincenzo Rosario, Muscatiello, Nicola
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