Abstract
Background and study aims Given variable diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), a through-the-needle (TTN) microforceps biopsy device passed through a 19-gauge FNA needle has been devised to improve tissue sampling. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, diagnostic yield, and safety of EUS-guided TTN microforceps biopsy for diagnosis of PCLs.
Methods Individualized searches were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included pooled technical success, diagnostic yield, accuracy, and procedure-associated adverse events (AEs) as well as comparison to conventional FNA.
Results Eleven studies (n = 518 patients; mean age 64.13 ± 5.83 years; 58.19 % female) were included. Mean PCL size was 33.39 ± 3.72 mm with the pancreatic head/uncinate (35.50 %) being the most common location. A mean of 2.47 ± 0.92 forceps passes were performed with a mean of 2.79 ± 0.81 microbiopsies obtained per lesion. Pooled technical success was 97.12 % (95 % CI, 93.73–98.71; I2 = 34.49) with a diagnostic yield of 79.60 % (95 % CI, 72.62–85.16; I2 = 56.00), and accuracy of 82.76 % [(95 % CI, 77.80–86.80; I2 = 0.00). The pooled serious adverse event rate was 1.08 % (95 % CI, 0.43–2.69; I2 = 0.00). Compared to conventional FNA, TTN microforceps biopsy resulted in significant improvement in diagnostic yield [OR 4.79 (95 % CI: 1.52–15.06; P = 0.007)] and diagnostic accuracy [OR 8.69 (95 % CI, 1.12–67.12; P = 0.038)], respectively.
Conclusions EUS-guided TTN microforceps biopsy appears to be safe and effective for diagnosis of PCLs with improvement in diagnostic yield and accuracy when compared to FNA alone.
Sa1463 USE OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED THROUGH-THE-NEEDLE MICROFORCEPS BIOPSY IMPROVES DIAGNOSTIC YIELD FOR PANCREATIC CYSTIC LESIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
