EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Kovacevic, Bojan; Antonelli, Giulio; Klausen, Pia; Hassan, Cesare; Larghi, Alberto; Vilmann, Peter; Karstensen, John.

I: Endoscopic Ultrasound, Bind 10, Nr. 4, 2021, s. 270-279.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Kovacevic, B, Antonelli, G, Klausen, P, Hassan, C, Larghi, A, Vilmann, P & Karstensen, J 2021, 'EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis', Endoscopic Ultrasound, bind 10, nr. 4, s. 270-279. https://doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00172

APA

Kovacevic, B., Antonelli, G., Klausen, P., Hassan, C., Larghi, A., Vilmann, P., & Karstensen, J. (2021). EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopic Ultrasound, 10(4), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00172

Vancouver

Kovacevic B, Antonelli G, Klausen P, Hassan C, Larghi A, Vilmann P o.a. EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopic Ultrasound. 2021;10(4):270-279. https://doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00172

Author

Kovacevic, Bojan ; Antonelli, Giulio ; Klausen, Pia ; Hassan, Cesare ; Larghi, Alberto ; Vilmann, Peter ; Karstensen, John. / EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions : A systematic review and meta-analysis. I: Endoscopic Ultrasound. 2021 ; Bind 10, Nr. 4. s. 270-279.

Bibtex

@article{3dd6dc6272f54055b51b862c68b121e8,
title = "EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background and Objectives: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent incidental findings on cross-sectional imaging and represent a diagnostic challenge as different kinds of PCLs harbor a dissimilar risk of malignancy. Two diagnostic tools have recently been developed and introduced: through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic yield and performance, as well as the safety profile of the two methods. Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies with five or more patients undergoing either endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-TTNB or EUS-nCLE for a PCL. Reviews, case reports, editorials, conference abstracts, and studies on exclusively solid pancreatic lesions were excluded. Outcomes of interest were diagnostic yield and performance, safety, and technical success. Results: Twenty studies with 1023 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic yield of EUS-nCLE was higher compared to EUS-TTNB (85% vs. 74%, P < 0.0001), while diagnostic performance was high and comparable for both methods (pooled sensitivity: 80% vs. 86% and pooled specificity: 80% vs. 83% for TTNB and nCLE, respectively, P > 0.05). Pooled estimate of total adverse event (AE) rate was 5% in the TTNB group and 3% in the nCLE group, P = 0.302. Technical success rates were high and comparable (94% and 99% for EUS-TTNB and nCLE, respectively; P = 0.07). Conclusion: EUS-TTNB and EUS-nCLE have a similar safety profile with a relatively low number of AEs. Technical success, sensitivity, and specificity are comparable; however, EUS-nCLE seems to have a slightly higher diagnostic yield.",
keywords = "EUS-through-the-needle biopsy, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, moray, needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, pancreatic cyst",
author = "Bojan Kovacevic and Giulio Antonelli and Pia Klausen and Cesare Hassan and Alberto Larghi and Peter Vilmann and John Karstensen",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Spring Media. All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.4103/EUS-D-20-00172",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "270--279",
journal = "Endoscopic Ultrasound",
issn = "2226-7190",
publisher = "Spring International S & T Publishing Media Co.",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Kovacevic, Bojan

AU - Antonelli, Giulio

AU - Klausen, Pia

AU - Hassan, Cesare

AU - Larghi, Alberto

AU - Vilmann, Peter

AU - Karstensen, John

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Spring Media. All rights reserved.

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Background and Objectives: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent incidental findings on cross-sectional imaging and represent a diagnostic challenge as different kinds of PCLs harbor a dissimilar risk of malignancy. Two diagnostic tools have recently been developed and introduced: through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic yield and performance, as well as the safety profile of the two methods. Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies with five or more patients undergoing either endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-TTNB or EUS-nCLE for a PCL. Reviews, case reports, editorials, conference abstracts, and studies on exclusively solid pancreatic lesions were excluded. Outcomes of interest were diagnostic yield and performance, safety, and technical success. Results: Twenty studies with 1023 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic yield of EUS-nCLE was higher compared to EUS-TTNB (85% vs. 74%, P < 0.0001), while diagnostic performance was high and comparable for both methods (pooled sensitivity: 80% vs. 86% and pooled specificity: 80% vs. 83% for TTNB and nCLE, respectively, P > 0.05). Pooled estimate of total adverse event (AE) rate was 5% in the TTNB group and 3% in the nCLE group, P = 0.302. Technical success rates were high and comparable (94% and 99% for EUS-TTNB and nCLE, respectively; P = 0.07). Conclusion: EUS-TTNB and EUS-nCLE have a similar safety profile with a relatively low number of AEs. Technical success, sensitivity, and specificity are comparable; however, EUS-nCLE seems to have a slightly higher diagnostic yield.

AB - Background and Objectives: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent incidental findings on cross-sectional imaging and represent a diagnostic challenge as different kinds of PCLs harbor a dissimilar risk of malignancy. Two diagnostic tools have recently been developed and introduced: through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic yield and performance, as well as the safety profile of the two methods. Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies with five or more patients undergoing either endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-TTNB or EUS-nCLE for a PCL. Reviews, case reports, editorials, conference abstracts, and studies on exclusively solid pancreatic lesions were excluded. Outcomes of interest were diagnostic yield and performance, safety, and technical success. Results: Twenty studies with 1023 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic yield of EUS-nCLE was higher compared to EUS-TTNB (85% vs. 74%, P < 0.0001), while diagnostic performance was high and comparable for both methods (pooled sensitivity: 80% vs. 86% and pooled specificity: 80% vs. 83% for TTNB and nCLE, respectively, P > 0.05). Pooled estimate of total adverse event (AE) rate was 5% in the TTNB group and 3% in the nCLE group, P = 0.302. Technical success rates were high and comparable (94% and 99% for EUS-TTNB and nCLE, respectively; P = 0.07). Conclusion: EUS-TTNB and EUS-nCLE have a similar safety profile with a relatively low number of AEs. Technical success, sensitivity, and specificity are comparable; however, EUS-nCLE seems to have a slightly higher diagnostic yield.

KW - EUS-through-the-needle biopsy

KW - intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm

KW - moray

KW - needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy

KW - pancreatic cyst

U2 - 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00172

DO - 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00172

M3 - Review

C2 - 34290168

AN - SCOPUS:85113323588

VL - 10

SP - 270

EP - 279

JO - Endoscopic Ultrasound

JF - Endoscopic Ultrasound

SN - 2226-7190

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 279274783