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.

Facciorusso A., Crino S.F., Gkolfakis P., Ramai D., Lisotti A., Papanikolaou I.S., et al. (2022). Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. GASTROENTEROLOGY REPORT, 10, 1-8 [10.1093/gastro/goac062].

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

Lisotti A.
;
Fusaroli P.
2022

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.
2022
Facciorusso A., Crino S.F., Gkolfakis P., Ramai D., Lisotti A., Papanikolaou I.S., et al. (2022). Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. GASTROENTEROLOGY REPORT, 10, 1-8 [10.1093/gastro/goac062].
Facciorusso A.; Crino S.F.; Gkolfakis P.; Ramai D.; Lisotti A.; Papanikolaou I.S.; Mangiavillano B.; Tarantino I.; Anderloni A.; Fabbri C.; Triantafyl...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Gastroenterol Rep 2022 Facciorusso.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 750.33 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
750.33 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
goac062_supplementary_data.zip

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 524.32 kB
Formato Zip File
524.32 kB Zip File Visualizza/Apri

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/11585/914801
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact