Comparative Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies vs. Percutaneous Biopsies of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance

Author:

Paramythiotis Daniel1ORCID,Karlafti Eleni23ORCID,Tsavdaris Dimitrios1ORCID,Arvanitakis Konstantinos4ORCID,Protopapas Adonis A.3ORCID,Germanidis Georgios4ORCID,Kougias Leonidas5ORCID,Hatzidakis Adam5,Savopoulos Christos3,Michalopoulos Antonios1

Affiliation:

1. First Propaedeutic Surgery Department, University General Hospital of Thessaloniki AHEPA, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece

2. Emergency Department, University General Hospital of Thessaloniki AHEPA, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece

3. First Propaedeutic Department of Internal Medicine, University General Hospital of Thessaloniki AHEPA, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece

4. First Department of Internal Medicine, University General Hospital of Thessaloniki AHEPA, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece

5. Department of Radiology, University General Hospital of Thessaloniki AHEPA, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer ranks as the fourth deadliest form of cancer. However, it is essential to note that not all pancreatic masses signal primary malignancy. Therefore, it is imperative to establish the correct differential diagnosis, a process further supported by pre-operative biopsy procedures. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic performance of two minimally invasive biopsy approaches for pancreatic tissue sampling: percutaneous biopsies guided by computed tomography or ultrasound, and transduodenal biopsies guided by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. The included studies analyzed the diagnostic performance of the two biopsy methods, and they were assessed for risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 tool. Statistical analysis was carried out using the RevMan and MetaDisc software packages. Results: The statistical analysis of the results demonstrated the superiority of the percutaneous approach. Specifically, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR−and DOR for the percutaneous approach were 0.896 [95% CI: 0.878–0.913], 0.949 [95% CI: 0.892–0.981], 9.70 [95% CI: 5.20–18.09], 0.20 [95% CI: 0.12–0.32] and 68.55 [95% CI: 32.63–143.98], respectively. The corresponding values for EUS-guided biopsies were 0.806 [95% CI: 0.775–0.834], 0.955 [95% CI: 0.926–0.974], 12.04 [95% CI: 2.67–54.17], 0.24 [95% CI: 0.15–0.39] and 52.56 [95% CI: 13.81–200.09], respectively. Nevertheless, it appears that this statistical superiority is also linked to the selection bias favoring larger and hence more readily accessible tumors during percutaneous biopsy procedures. Conclusions: Concisely, our meta-analysis indicates the statistical superiority of the percutaneous approach. However, selecting the optimal biopsy method is complex, influenced by factors like patient and tumor characteristics, clinical resources, and other relevant considerations.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Reference85 articles.

1. The epidemiology of pancreatic cancer in the United States: Changes below the surface;Shaib;Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.,2006

2. Pancreatic Cancer: Pathogenesis and Diagnosis;Goral;Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev.,2015

3. Pancreatic cancer;Vincent;Lancet,2011

4. Pancreatic Carcinoma;Warshaw;N. Engl. J. Med.,1992

5. Centeno, B.A., and Thomas, S.C. (2020). Monographs in Clinical Cytology, Karger.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3