Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy is Superior to Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration in Sampling Pancreatic Masses.
Wenhong Fan,Hongling Wang,Qiu Zhao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.039
IF: 13.576
2018-01-01
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Abstract:We read with interest the report by Cheng et al,1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar which compared fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of pancreatic and abdominal masses. In their randomized controlled trial (RCT), 249 patients with pancreatic masses were assigned randomly to groups (1:1) for assessment by EUS-FNA (n = 126) or EUS-FNB (n = 123). Finally, they found that EUS-FNB samples of pancreatic masses produced a more accurate diagnosis than the samples collected by EUS-FNA (P = .0099). However, this was inconsistent with 2 newly published studies, which reported a similar level of diagnostic accuracy between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB (P = .063 in Bang et al,2Noh D.H. et al.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 1-6Google Scholar and P = .564 in Noh et al3Bang J.Y. et al.Gut. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar). We thought this inconsistency might be caused by the small size of included patients in Noh et al3Bang J.Y. et al.Gut. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar (n = 60) and Bang et al2Noh D.H. et al.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 1-6Google Scholar (n = 46) studies. After a systematic literature review, it was found that most related RCTs also were limited in sample size. Except for Cheng et al,1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar none of the studies reported a higher accuracy in EUS-FNB than EUS-FNA. To overcome the limitation of small sample size, we conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNB with EUS-FNA in sampling pancreatic masses. Eleven studies were included with a total of 694 EUS-FNA cases and 688 EUS-FNB cases.1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar, 2Noh D.H. et al.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 1-6Google Scholar, 3Bang J.Y. et al.Gut. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar, 4Bang J.Y. et al.Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 76: 321-327Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (194) Google Scholar, 5Hucl T. et al.Endoscopy. 2013; 45: 792-798Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar, 6Lee Y.N. et al.Endoscopy. 2014; 46: 1056-1062Crossref PubMed Scopus (109) Google Scholar, 7Strand D.S. et al.Diagn Cytopathol. 2014; 42: 751-758Crossref PubMed Scopus (57) Google Scholar, 8Vanbiervliet G. et al.Endoscopy. 2014; 46: 1063-1070Crossref PubMed Scopus (70) Google Scholar, 9Alatawi A. et al.United European Gastroenterol J. 2015; 3: 343-352Crossref PubMed Scopus (67) Google Scholar, 10Aadam A.A. et al.Endosc Int Open. 2016; 4: E497-E505Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 11Kamata K. et al.Endoscopy. 2016; 48: 632-638Crossref PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar EUS-FNB showed a higher accuracy than EUS-FNA in diagnosing pancreatic masses (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17–2.26; n = 10, I2 = 17%) (Figure 1). As for adverse events, no significant difference was found between EUS-FNB and EUS-FNB (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.27–3.78; n = 10, I2 = 0%) (Figure 2). The Egger test detected no significant publication biases. EUS-FNB had a higher accuracy (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.00–2.07; I2 = 9%) and comparable safety (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.37–11.46; I2 = 0%) than EUS-FNA after excluding the study by Cheng et al.1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google ScholarFigure 2Forrest plot for adverse events of EUS-FNB in comparison with EUS-FNA. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) A previous meta-analysis by Wang et al12Wang J. et al.Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96: e7452Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar did not find a statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB vs EUS-FNA (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49–1.07; n = 7, I2 = 8%). However, Wang et al12Wang J. et al.Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96: e7452Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar did not include 3 high-quality studies that subsequently have been published.1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar, 2Noh D.H. et al.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 1-6Google Scholar, 3Bang J.Y. et al.Gut. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar When we included these studies, the sample size increased significantly (by 50% in both the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNA groups). Thus, we could reach a more reliable result. In conclusion, we found that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in sampling pancreatic masses, which is consistent with the Cheng et al1Cheng B. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar study. Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled TrialClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologyVol. 16Issue 8PreviewEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needles with side fenestrations are used to collect aspirates for cytology analysis and biopsy samples for histologic analysis. We conducted a large, multicenter study to compare the accuracy of diagnosis via specimens collected with fine-needle biopsy (FNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for patients with pancreatic and nonpancreatic masses. Full-Text PDF