1.Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Suprabhat GIRI ; Shivaraj AFZALPURKAR ; Sumaswi ANGADI ; Sridhar SUNDARAM
Clinical Endoscopy 2022;55(5):615-625
Background/Aims:
Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (GI) SELs; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods:
A comprehensive literature search from January 2020 to January 2022 was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of MIAB and EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs.
Results:
Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89–1.04) and procedural time (mean difference=–4.53 seconds; 95% CI, –22.38 to 13.31] were comparable between both the groups. The overall chance of obtaining a positive diagnostic yield was lower with EUS than with MIAB for all lesions (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.98) but comparable when using a fine-needle biopsy needle (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83–1.04). The positive diagnostic yield of MIAB was higher for lesions <20 mm (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.89). Six studies reported no adverse events.
Conclusions
MIAB can be considered an effective alternative to EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs without an increased risk of adverse events.
2.Influence of biliary stents on the diagnostic outcome of endoscopic ultrasound–guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Suprabhat GIRI ; Shivaraj AFZALPURKAR ; Sumaswi ANGADI ; Jijo VARGHESE ; Sridhar SUNDARAM
Clinical Endoscopy 2023;56(2):169-179
Background/Aims:
This meta-analysis analyzed the effect of an indwelling biliary stent on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided tissue acquisition from pancreatic lesions.
Methods:
A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 2000 and July 2022 comparing the diagnostic outcomes of EUS-TA in patients with or without biliary stents. For non-strict criteria, samples reported as malignant or suspicious for malignancy were included, whereas for strict criteria, only samples reported as malignant were included in the analysis.
Results:
Nine studies were included in this analysis. The odds of an accurate diagnosis were significantly lower in patients with indwelling stents using both non-strict (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52–0.90) and strict criteria (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46–0.74). The pooled sensitivity with and without stents were similar (87% vs. 91%) using non-strict criteria. However, patients with stents had a lower pooled sensitivity (79% vs. 88%) when using strict criteria. The sample inadequacy rate was comparable between groups (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76–1.65). The diagnostic accuracy and sample inadequacy were comparable between plastic and metal biliary stents.
Conclusions
The presence of a biliary stent may negatively affect the diagnostic outcome of EUS-TA for pancreatic lesions.