The Korean journal of internal medicine

  • 제31권6호
  • /
  • Pages.1073-1083
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1226-3303(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-6648(eISSN)
대한내과학회 (The Korean Association of Internal Medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic accuracy of 22/25-gauge core needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling: systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Oh, Hyoung-Chul (Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Hyun (Department of Anesthesiology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jae Young (Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Geun Joo (Department of Anesthesiology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Jung Sik (Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2016.03.10
  • 심사 : 2016.06.28
  • 발행 : 2016.11.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background/Aims: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided core needle aspiration with that of standard fine-needle aspiration by systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Studies using 22/25-gauge core needles, irrespective of comparison with standard fine needles, were comprehensively reviewed. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curves for the diagnosis of malignancy were used to estimate the overall diagnostic efficiency. Results: The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of the core needle for the diagnosis of malignancy were 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.90), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1), and 167.37 (95% CI, 65.77 to 425.91), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of the standard needle were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88), 1 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1), and 130.14 (95% CI, 34.00 to 495.35), respectively. The area under the curve of core and standard needle in the diagnosis of malignancy was 0.974 and 0.955, respectively. The core and standard needle were comparable in terms of pancreatic malignancy diagnosis. There was no significant difference in procurement of optimal histologic cores between core and standard needles (risk ratio [RR], 0.545; 95% CI, 0.187 to 1.589). The number of needle passes for diagnosis was significantly lower with the core needle (standardized mean difference, -0.72; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.41). There were no significant differences in overall complications (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.34 to 4.62) and technical failure (RR, 5.07; 95% CI, 0.68 to 37.64). Conclusions: Core and standard needles were comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy, technical performance, and safety profile.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Buxbaum JL, Eloubeidi MA. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass? A meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas 2013;42:20-26. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0b013e3182546e79
  2. Hewitt MJ, McPhail MJ, Possamai L, Dhar A, Vlavianos P, Monahan KJ. EUS-guided FNA for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:319-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.049
  3. Caraway NP. Evolving role of FNA biopsy in diagnosing lymphoma: past, present, and future. Cancer Cytopathol 2015;123:389-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21551
  4. DeWitt J, Emerson RE, Sherman S, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy of gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumor. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2192-2202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1522-z
  5. Larghi A, Verna EC, Stavropoulos SN, Rotterdam H, Lightdale CJ, Stevens PD. EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:185-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02538-0
  6. Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1189-1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.053
  7. Larghi A, Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, et al. Feasibility and yield of a novel 22-gauge histology EUS needle in patients with pancreatic masses: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2013;27:3733-3738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2957-9
  8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med 2009;3:e123-e130. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874306400903010123
  9. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-2012. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
  10. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM; Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:889-897. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008
  11. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25
  12. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:982-990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022
  13. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1129-1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00177-X
  14. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00099-C
  15. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 1993;12:1293-1316. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780121403
  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
  17. Higgins JP, Green S; Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
  18. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016
  19. Bang JY, Hebert-Magee S, Trevino J, Ramesh J, Varadarajulu S. Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:321-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.1392
  20. Hucl T, Wee E, Anuradha S, et al. Feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core needle: a prospective comparison study. Endoscopy 2013;45:792-798. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1344217
  21. Strand DS, Jeffus SK, Sauer BG, Wang AY, Stelow EB, Shami VM. EUS-guided 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration versus core biopsy needle in the evaluation of solid pancreatic neoplasms. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42:751-758. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.23116
  22. Lee YN, Moon JH, Kim HK, et al. Core biopsy needle versus standard aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized parallel-group study. Endoscopy 2014;46:1056-1062. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1377558
  23. Vanbiervliet G, Napoleon B, Saint Paul MC, et al. Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2014;46:1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1377559
  24. Paik WH, Park Y, Park do H, et al. Prospective evaluation of new 22 gauge endoscopic ultrasound core needle using capillary sampling with stylet slow-pull technique for intra-abdominal solid masses. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015;49:199-205. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000000084
  25. Witt BL, Adler DG, Hilden K, Layfield LJ. A comparative needle study: EUS-FNA procedures using the HD ProCor and EchoTip 22-gauge needle types. Diagn Cytopathol 2013;41:1069-1074. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.22971
  26. Berzosa M, Villa N, El-Serag HB, Sejpal DV, Patel KK. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound guided 22-gauge core needle with standard 25-gauge fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. Endosc Ultrasound 2015;4:28-33. https://doi.org/10.4103/2303-9027.151320
  27. Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Samarasena JB, et al. High single-pass diagnostic yield of a new 25-gauge core biopsy needle for EUS-guided FNA biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:909-915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.001
  28. Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Maimone A, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of small solid pancreatic lesions using a 22-gauge needle with side fenestration. Surg Endosc 2015;29:1586-1590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3846-6
  29. Siddiqui UD, Rossi F, Rosenthal LS, Padda MS, Murali-Dharan V, Aslanian HR. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:1093-1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2009.05.037
  30. Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA, Michael H, Gress FG. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy 2009;41:445-448. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1214643
  31. Yasuda I, Goto N, Tsurumi H, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorders: feasibility of immunohistological, flow cytometric, and cytogenetic assessments. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:397-404. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2011.350
  32. Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Doi S, et al. Use of samples from endoscopic ultrasound-guided 19-gauge fine-needle aspiration in diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:316-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2011.09.032
  33. LeBlanc JK, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi MT, et al. Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:475-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02863-3

피인용 문헌

  1. EUS elastography (strain ratio) and fractal-based quantitative analysis for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions vol.87, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.031
  2. Review of the 2017 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines for Endoscopic Ultrasound - Guided Sampling in Pancreaticobiliary Lesions vol.74, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4166/kjg.2019.74.3.137
  3. Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis vol.9, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4103/eus.eus_4_19
  4. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come? vol.11, pp.8, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.454
  5. Agreement on endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided tissue specimens: Comparing a 20‐G fine‐needle biopsy to a 25‐G fine‐needle aspiration needle among academic and non‐ vol.31, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/den.13424
  6. New Devices for Endoscopic Treatments in Gastroenterology: A Narrative Review vol.21, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2174/1389200221666200722145727
  7. Comparison of the reverse bevel versus Franseen type endoscopic ultrasound needle vol.12, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v12.i9.266
  8. The Impact of Recent Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on the Management of Pancreatic Cancer vol.28, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1159/000510730
  9. Optimizing cytological specimens of EUS‐FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot study to the effect of a smear preparation training for endoscopy personnel on sample quality and accuracy vol.49, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24645
  10. The bleeding risk after endoscopic ultrasound-guided puncture of pancreatic masses vol.56, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2020.1863458
  11. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis vol.9, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1381-7301