Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
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 |
_version_ | 1784824076544507904 |
---|---|
author | 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 |
author_facet | 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 |
author_sort | Facciorusso, Antonio |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9632631 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96326312022-11-04 Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis 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 Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) Original Article 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. Oxford University Press 2022-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9632631/ /pubmed/36340808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goac062 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press and Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article 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 Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Original Article |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT facciorussoantonio endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT crinostefanofrancesco endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gkolfakisparaskevas endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ramaidaryl endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lisottiandrea endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT papanikolaouioanniss endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mangiavillanobenedetto endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tarantinoilaria endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT anderloniandrea endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fabbricarlo endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT triantafylloukonstantinos endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fusarolipietro endoscopicultrasoundfineneedlebiopsyvsfineneedleaspirationforlymphnodestissueacquisitionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |