Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Objectives

It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses. Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques.

Methods

We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through October 2020 and identified 6 studies, of which 2 randomized controlled trials (recruiting 701 patients). We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 84.6% (95% CI 80.7%-88.6%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 75.3% (67%-83.5%) with EUS-FNA, with evidence of a significant superiority of the former (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26–2.40; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the superiority of CH-EUS-FNA over EUS-FNA only in larger lesions. Pooled diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% (85.6%-91.9%) in CH-EUS-FNA group and 83.6% (79.4%-87.8%) in EUS-FNA group (OR 1.52, 1.01–2.31; p = 0.05). Pooled sample adequacy was 95.1% (91.1%-99.1%) with CH-EUS-FNA and 89.4% (81%-97.8%) with EUS-FNA (OR 2.40, 1.38–4.17; p = 0.02).

Conclusion

CH-EUS-FNA seems to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

KEYWORDS:

• EUS
• fna
• pancreas
• endoscopy
• ch-EUS-FNA

Abbreviation

CI, Confidence Interval; OR, Odds Ratio

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer Disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.