Abstract
The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA/B in patients with panNETs. We conducted a computerized search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify relevant articles. The primary outcomes involved grading concordance rate, diagnostic rate, and correlation coefficient (Cohen's κ) for FNA/B samples compared with surgical specimens. Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy, mean number of passes, and adverse events. Forty-five studies involving 2978 patients were finally included. The pooled concordance rate between EUS-FNA/B and surgical grading was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80; I2=48.2%). A significantly higher level of concordance was observed in G1 subgroup (0.88, 95% CI: 0.84-0.91), whereas the G2 subgroup revealed the lowest level of agreement (0.59, 95% CI: 0.52-0.65; P < 0.001). Pooled diagnostic rate for FNA/B sampling was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86; I2=63.3%). In addition, FNB outperformed FNA in terms of sample adequacy (0.93 for FNB vs. 0.81 for FNA; P=0.007) and number of needle passes required (2.53 for FNB vs. 3.32 for FNA; P=0.013). Moreover, the overall level of agreement for grading was moderate (κ=0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.68; I2=84.5%). There were a limited number of adverse events that had minor influence on patient outcomes (0.03, 95% CI: 0.02-0.05; I2=19.2%). EUS-FNA/B is a reliable approach for the diagnosis and preoperative grading of panNET, with FNB demonstrating superior performance compared with FNA.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.