Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Facciorusso, Antonio, Crinò, Stefano Francesco, Gkolfakis, Paraskevas, Ramai, Daryl, Lisotti, Andrea, Papanikolaou, Ioannis S, Mangiavillano, Benedetto, Tarantino, Ilaria, Anderloni, Andrea, Fabbri, Carlo, Triantafyllou, Konstantinos, Fusaroli, Pietro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Original Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9632631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36340808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goac062
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81–2.10; P = 0.270). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was significantly higher when being performed with newer end-cutting needles (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.17–3.00; P = 0.009) and in abdominal LNs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52–4.05; P < 0.001) than that of EUS-FNA. No difference in terms of sample adequacy was observed between the two approaches (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.46–4.26; P = 0.550); however, histological core procurement and diagnostic sensitivity with EUS-FNB were significantly higher than those with EUS-FNA (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.51–25.07; P = 0.010 and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27–2.74, P = 0.001). The number of needle passes needed was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB group than in the EUS-FNA group (mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.12; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.

Ejemplares similares