Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without rapid on-site evaluation for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS–guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in patients with pancreatic masses is still matter of debate. Aim of our meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two tissue acquisition strategies. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through December 2021 and 8 studies were identified (2147 patients). The primary outcome was sample adequacy. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test and summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference and 95% confidence Interval (CI). There was no difference in terms of baseline variables between the two groups. Pooled sample adequacy was 95.5% (95% CI 93.2%–97.8%) and 88.9% (83.4%-94.5%) in the EUS-FNB + ROSE and EUS-FNB groups, respectively (OR = 2.05, 0.94–4.49; P = 0.07). Diagnostic accuracy resulted significantly superior in the EUS-FNB + ROSE group (OR = 2.49, 1.08–5.73; P = 0.03), particularly when the analysis was restricted to reverse bevel needle (OR = 3.24, 1.19–8.82, P = 0.02), whereas no statistical difference was observed when newer end-cutting needles were used (OR = 0.71, 0.29–3.61, P = 0.56). Diagnostic sensitivity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR = 1.94, 0.84–4.49; P = 0.12), whereas pooled specificity was 100% with both approaches. The number of needle passes needed to obtain diagnostic samples was not significantly different (mean difference 0.07,-0.22 to 0.37; P = 0.62). Our meta-analysis stands for a non-superiority of EUS-FNB + ROSE over EUS-FNB with newer end-cutting needles, whereas ROSE could have still a role when reverse bevel needles are used.