Federico Mei1, Martina Bonifazi2,3, Matteo Rota4, Laura Cirilli3, Martina Grilli2, Claudia Duranti2, Lina Zuccatosta2, Eihab O Bedawi5, David McCracken5, Stefano Gasparini2,3, Najib M Rahman5,6. 1. Respiratory Diseases Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy, fedusmei@gmail.com. 2. Respiratory Diseases Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy. 3. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. 4. Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 5. Oxford Pleural Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. 6. Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic yield (DY) and safety of computed tomography (CT)- and thoracic ultrasound (TUS)-guided biopsies in the diagnosis of pleural lesions have been investigated in a number of studies, but no synthesis of data from the literature has ever been performed. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the DY and safety of CT- versus TUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of pleural lesions. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for all studies reporting outcomes of interest published up to April 2018. Two authors reviewed all titles/abstracts and retrieved selected full text to identify studies according to predefined selection criteria. Summary estimates were derived using the random-effects model. Cumulative meta-analysis assessed the influence of increasing adoption of the procedures over time. RESULTS: Thirty original studies were included in the present review; the number of studies on TUS-guided biopsy was almost three-fold higher than those on CT-guided biopsy. The pooled DYs of the 2 procedures were overall excellent and differed <10%, being 84% for TUS-guided biopsy and 93% for CT-guided biopsy. Safety profiles were reassuring for both the techniques, being 7 and 3% for CT- and TUS-guided biopsy, respectively. DY of ultrasound technique significantly improved over time, while no time effect was observed for CT-guided biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Data show that CT- and TUS-guided biopsies in the diagnosis of pleural lesions are both excellent procedures, without meaningful differences in DYs and safety. Considering that TUS is non-ionizing and easily performed at the bedside, it should be the preferred approach in presence of adequate skills.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic yield (DY) and safety of computed tomography (CT)- and thoracic ultrasound (TUS)-guided biopsies in the diagnosis of pleural lesions have been investigated in a number of studies, but no synthesis of data from the literature has ever been performed. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the DY and safety of CT- versus TUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of pleural lesions. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for all studies reporting outcomes of interest published up to April 2018. Two authors reviewed all titles/abstracts and retrieved selected full text to identify studies according to predefined selection criteria. Summary estimates were derived using the random-effects model. Cumulative meta-analysis assessed the influence of increasing adoption of the procedures over time. RESULTS: Thirty original studies were included in the present review; the number of studies on TUS-guided biopsy was almost three-fold higher than those on CT-guided biopsy. The pooled DYs of the 2 procedures were overall excellent and differed <10%, being 84% for TUS-guided biopsy and 93% for CT-guided biopsy. Safety profiles were reassuring for both the techniques, being 7 and 3% for CT- and TUS-guided biopsy, respectively. DY of ultrasound technique significantly improved over time, while no time effect was observed for CT-guided biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Data show that CT- and TUS-guided biopsies in the diagnosis of pleural lesions are both excellent procedures, without meaningful differences in DYs and safety. Considering that TUS is non-ionizing and easily performed at the bedside, it should be the preferred approach in presence of adequate skills.