Cargando…
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis
Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2021
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8159621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34079867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1381-7301 |
_version_ | 1783700127847809024 |
---|---|
author | Han, Samuel Bhullar, Furqan Alaber, Omar Kamal, Ayesha Hopson, Puanani Kanthasamy, Kavin Coughlin, Sarah Archibugi, Livia Thiruvengadam, Nikhil Moreau, Christopher Jin, David Paragomi, Pedram Valverde-López, Francisco Nagpal, Sajan Yazici, Cemal Papachristou, Georgios Lee, Peter J Akshintala, Venkata |
author_facet | Han, Samuel Bhullar, Furqan Alaber, Omar Kamal, Ayesha Hopson, Puanani Kanthasamy, Kavin Coughlin, Sarah Archibugi, Livia Thiruvengadam, Nikhil Moreau, Christopher Jin, David Paragomi, Pedram Valverde-López, Francisco Nagpal, Sajan Yazici, Cemal Papachristou, Georgios Lee, Peter J Akshintala, Venkata |
author_sort | Han, Samuel |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8159621 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81596212021-06-01 Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis Han, Samuel Bhullar, Furqan Alaber, Omar Kamal, Ayesha Hopson, Puanani Kanthasamy, Kavin Coughlin, Sarah Archibugi, Livia Thiruvengadam, Nikhil Moreau, Christopher Jin, David Paragomi, Pedram Valverde-López, Francisco Nagpal, Sajan Yazici, Cemal Papachristou, Georgios Lee, Peter J Akshintala, Venkata Endosc Int Open Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021-06 2021-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8159621/ /pubmed/34079867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1381-7301 Text en The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Han, Samuel Bhullar, Furqan Alaber, Omar Kamal, Ayesha Hopson, Puanani Kanthasamy, Kavin Coughlin, Sarah Archibugi, Livia Thiruvengadam, Nikhil Moreau, Christopher Jin, David Paragomi, Pedram Valverde-López, Francisco Nagpal, Sajan Yazici, Cemal Papachristou, Georgios Lee, Peter J Akshintala, Venkata Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis |
title | Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparative diagnostic accuracy of eus needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8159621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34079867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1381-7301 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hansamuel comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT bhullarfurqan comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT alaberomar comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT kamalayesha comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT hopsonpuanani comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT kanthasamykavin comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT coughlinsarah comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT archibugilivia comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT thiruvengadamnikhil comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT moreauchristopher comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT jindavid comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT paragomipedram comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT valverdelopezfrancisco comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT nagpalsajan comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT yazicicemal comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT papachristougeorgios comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT leepeterj comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT akshintalavenkata comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis AT comparativediagnosticaccuracyofeusneedlesinsolidpancreaticmassesanetworkmetaanalysis |