Objectives: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses. Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques. Methods: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through October 2020 and identified 6 studies, of which 2 randomized controlled trials (recruiting 701 patients). We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 84.6% (95% CI 80.7%-88.6%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 75.3% (67%-83.5%) with EUS-FNA, with evidence of a significant superiority of the former (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26–2.40; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the superiority of CH-EUS-FNA over EUS-FNA only in larger lesions. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% (85.6%-91.9%) in CH-EUS-FNA group and 83.6% (79.4%-87.8%) in EUS-FNA group (OR 1.52, 1.01–2.31; p = 0.05). Pooled sample adequacy was 95.1% (91.1%-99.1%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 89.4% (81%-97.8%) with EUS-FNA (OR 2.40, 1.38–4.17; p = 0.02). Conclusion: CH-EUS-FNA seems to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

Facciorusso A., Mohan B.P., Crino S.F., Ofosu A., Ramai D., Lisotti A., et al. (2021). Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. EXPERT REVIEW OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 15(7), 821-828 [10.1080/17474124.2021.1880893].

Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis

Facciorusso A.;Lisotti A.;Fusaroli P.
2021

Abstract

Objectives: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses. Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques. Methods: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through October 2020 and identified 6 studies, of which 2 randomized controlled trials (recruiting 701 patients). We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 84.6% (95% CI 80.7%-88.6%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 75.3% (67%-83.5%) with EUS-FNA, with evidence of a significant superiority of the former (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26–2.40; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the superiority of CH-EUS-FNA over EUS-FNA only in larger lesions. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% (85.6%-91.9%) in CH-EUS-FNA group and 83.6% (79.4%-87.8%) in EUS-FNA group (OR 1.52, 1.01–2.31; p = 0.05). Pooled sample adequacy was 95.1% (91.1%-99.1%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 89.4% (81%-97.8%) with EUS-FNA (OR 2.40, 1.38–4.17; p = 0.02). Conclusion: CH-EUS-FNA seems to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.
2021
Facciorusso A., Mohan B.P., Crino S.F., Ofosu A., Ramai D., Lisotti A., et al. (2021). Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. EXPERT REVIEW OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 15(7), 821-828 [10.1080/17474124.2021.1880893].
Facciorusso A.; Mohan B.P.; Crino S.F.; Ofosu A.; Ramai D.; Lisotti A.; Chandan S.; Fusaroli P.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/844231
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 52
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 49
social impact