Xiao-Cen Zhang1, Quan-Lin Li1, Yong-Fu Yu2, Li-Qing Yao1, Mei-Dong Xu1, Yi-Qun Zhang1, Yun-Shi Zhong1, Wei-Feng Chen1, Ping-Hong Zhou3. 1. Endoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 FengLin Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 2. Section for Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Endoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 FengLin Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. zhou.pinghong@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of studies have been conducted on the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided needle sampling for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SEL). However, reported diagnostic efficacy varies greatly. OBJECTIVE: To summarize up current evidences on the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided needle sampling for upper GI SEL. METHOD: A reproducible strategy was used to search four databases. Search results were evaluated for eligibility, and the quality of eligible studies was assessed by QUADAS-2. Pooled efficacy of EUS-guided needle sampling in upper GI SEL was calculated. Procedure-related complications, diagnostic errors, and independent factors related to a higher success rate were also recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, comprising 978 attempts of EUS-guided needle sampling, were included in a meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic rate of EUS-guided needle sampling was 59.9 %, with a heterogeneity I (2) of 55.2 %. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in diagnostic rate among fine needle aspiration (FNA), trucut needle biopsy (TCB), and fine needle biopsy (FNB), or among 19-, 22-, and 25-G needles. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression suggested that the cell block method might be correlated with a higher diagnostic rate. Few severe complications were reported. Diagnosis errors were rare. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided needle sampling is a safe, but only moderately effective method for pathology diagnosis of upper GI SEL. Choice of FNA/TCB/FNB, or 19 G/22 G/25 G does not seem to alter the overall diagnostic rate.
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of studies have been conducted on the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided needle sampling for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (SEL). However, reported diagnostic efficacy varies greatly. OBJECTIVE: To summarize up current evidences on the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided needle sampling for upper GI SEL. METHOD: A reproducible strategy was used to search four databases. Search results were evaluated for eligibility, and the quality of eligible studies was assessed by QUADAS-2. Pooled efficacy of EUS-guided needle sampling in upper GI SEL was calculated. Procedure-related complications, diagnostic errors, and independent factors related to a higher success rate were also recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, comprising 978 attempts of EUS-guided needle sampling, were included in a meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic rate of EUS-guided needle sampling was 59.9 %, with a heterogeneity I (2) of 55.2 %. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in diagnostic rate among fine needle aspiration (FNA), trucut needle biopsy (TCB), and fine needle biopsy (FNB), or among 19-, 22-, and 25-G needles. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression suggested that the cell block method might be correlated with a higher diagnostic rate. Few severe complications were reported. Diagnosis errors were rare. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided needle sampling is a safe, but only moderately effective method for pathology diagnosis of upper GI SEL. Choice of FNA/TCB/FNB, or 19 G/22 G/25 G does not seem to alter the overall diagnostic rate.
Authors: Julio Iglesias-Garcia; J Enrique Dominguez-Munoz; Ihab Abdulkader; Jose Larino-Noia; Elena Eugenyeva; Antonio Lozano-Leon; Jeronimo Forteza-Vila Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Fauze Maluf-Filho; Joel Fernandez de Oliveira; Ernesto Quaresma Mendonça; Augusto Carbonari; Bruno Antônio Maciente; Bruno Chaves Salomão; Bruno Frederico Medrado; Carlos Marcelo Dotti; César Vivian Lopes; Cláudia Utsch Braga; Daniel Alencar M Dutra; Felipe Retes; Frank Nakao; Giovana Biasia de Sousa; Gustavo Andrade de Paulo; Jose Celso Ardengh; Juliana Bonfim Dos Santos; Luciana Moura Sampaio; Luciano Okawa; Lucio Rossini; Manoel Carlos de Brito Cardoso; Marco Antonio Ribeiro Camunha; Marcos Clarêncio; Marcos Eduardo Lera Dos Santos; Matheus Franco; Nutianne Camargo Schneider; Ramiro Mascarenhas; Rodrigo Roda; Sérgio Matuguma; Simone Guaraldi; Viviane Figueiredo Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2017 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.628
Authors: Ariosto H Hernandez-Lara; Ana Garcia Garcia de Paredes; Louis M Wong Kee Song; Daniel J Rowan; Rondell P Graham; Michael J Levy; Ferga C Gleeson; Amrit K Kamboj; Kristin C Mara; Barham K Abu-Dayyeh; Vinay Chandrasekhara; Prasad G Iyer; Andrew C Storm; Elizabeth Rajan Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2021-04-02