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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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