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

Author:

Facciorusso Antonio12,Crinò Stefano Francesco2,Gkolfakis Paraskevas3,Ramai Daryl4,Lisotti Andrea5ORCID,Papanikolaou Ioannis S6,Mangiavillano Benedetto7,Tarantino Ilaria8,Anderloni Andrea9,Fabbri Carlo10,Triantafyllou Konstantinos6,Fusaroli Pietro5

Affiliation:

1. Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia , Foggia, Italy

2. Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona , Verona, Italy

3. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, CUB Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) , Brussels, Belgium

4. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Health , Salt Lake City, UT, USA

5. Gastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna , Imola, Italy

6. Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ‘Attikon’ University General Hospital , Athens, Greece

7. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Mater Domini , Castellanza, Varese, Italy

8. Endoscopy Service, Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Services, IRCCS-ISMETT , Palermo, Italy

9. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center—IRCCS , Rozzano, Milano, Italy

10. Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Forlì-Cesena Hospitals, AUSL Romagna , Forlì-Cesena, Italy

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Gastroenterology

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