Xiao Pan1,2, Shu Huang3, Peiling Gan1,2, Lei Shi1,2, Huifang Xia1,2, Xinyi Zeng1,2, Han Zhang1,2, Muhan Lü1,2, Xian Zhou1,2, Xiaowei Tang1,2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, The Affliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China. 2. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, China. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, the People's Hospital of Lianshui, Huaian, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: At present, it is difficult and risky to diagnose splenic lesions by conventional needle biopsy using computed tomography (CT) or ultrasound (US). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is increasingly being used as a new technique to determine the tissue diagnosis of splenic lesions. Therefore, our goal was to determine the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for splenic lesions. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of splenic lesions using Metadisc. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Questionnaire, a quality assessment tool, was used to scrutinize the quality of the studies. RESULTS: Six eligible studies between January 2000 and June 2022 were identified, and a total number of 62 patients (aged range from 19 to 84) were enrolled. One patient was excluded because of insufficient specimens. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of included studies were 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.93] and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.46-0.95), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 2.38 (95% CI, 1.24-4.57), the pooled negative LR was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.17-0.55), the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 8.67 (95% CI, 2.80-26.82), the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.8100 (Standard Error 0.0813). CONCLUSION: EUS-guided tissue acquisition is a safe technique with high sensitivity in the diagnosis of splenic lesions. However, because of the small sample sizes, more studies with more cases are needed to further validate these results.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: At present, it is difficult and risky to diagnose splenic lesions by conventional needle biopsy using computed tomography (CT) or ultrasound (US). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is increasingly being used as a new technique to determine the tissue diagnosis of splenic lesions. Therefore, our goal was to determine the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for splenic lesions. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of splenic lesions using Metadisc. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Questionnaire, a quality assessment tool, was used to scrutinize the quality of the studies. RESULTS: Six eligible studies between January 2000 and June 2022 were identified, and a total number of 62 patients (aged range from 19 to 84) were enrolled. One patient was excluded because of insufficient specimens. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of included studies were 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.93] and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.46-0.95), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 2.38 (95% CI, 1.24-4.57), the pooled negative LR was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.17-0.55), the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 8.67 (95% CI, 2.80-26.82), the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.8100 (Standard Error 0.0813). CONCLUSION: EUS-guided tissue acquisition is a safe technique with high sensitivity in the diagnosis of splenic lesions. However, because of the small sample sizes, more studies with more cases are needed to further validate these results.
Authors: Nirag C Jhala; Darshana Jhala; Isam Eltoum; Selwyn M Vickers; C Mel Wilcox; David C Chhieng; Mohamad A Eloubeidi Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-08-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tae Jun Song; Ji Hoon Kim; Sang Soo Lee; Jun Bum Eum; Sung Hoon Moon; Do Hyun Park; Dong Wan Seo; Sung Koo Lee; Se Jin Jang; Sung Cheol Yun; Myung-Hwan Kim Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Matthew D F McInnes; David Moher; Brett D Thombs; Trevor A McGrath; Patrick M Bossuyt; Tammy Clifford; Jérémie F Cohen; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Harriet A Hunt; Christopher J Hyde; Daniël A Korevaar; Mariska M G Leeflang; Petra Macaskill; Johannes B Reitsma; Rachel Rodin; Anne W S Rutjes; Jean-Paul Salameh; Adrienne Stevens; Yemisi Takwoingi; Marcello Tonelli; Laura Weeks; Penny Whiting; Brian H Willis Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrea Lisotti; Stefano Francesco Crinò; Benedetto Mangiavillano; Anna Cominardi; Andrew Ofosu; Nicole Brighi; Flavio Metelli; Rocco Maurizio Zagari; Antonio Facciorusso; Pietro Fusaroli Journal: Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Gabriel Mosquera-Klinger; Carlos de la Serna Higuera; Sergio Bazaga; Francisco Javier García-Alonso; Ramón Sánchez Ocaña; Beatriz Antolín Melero; Marina de Benito Sanz; Beatriz Madrigal; Ángeles Torres; Manuel Pérez-Miranda Journal: Rev Esp Enferm Dig Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 2.086