Combined Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Provides Better Sensitivity and Adequacy Rates After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Abdominal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Marie Anne Engh, Brigitta Teutsch, Alexander Schulze Wenning, Tamás Kói, Péter Hegyi, Bálint Erőss
{"title":"Combined Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Provides Better Sensitivity and Adequacy Rates After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Abdominal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Marie Anne Engh, Brigitta Teutsch, Alexander Schulze Wenning, Tamás Kói, Péter Hegyi, Bálint Erőss","doi":"10.3390/jcm14186685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and Aims:</b> Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) is the standard method for diagnosing abdominal masses, but sample inadequacy and diagnostic accuracy remain challenges. Conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) are standard processing methods, yet their comparative effectiveness and potential combined benefit remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance and adequacy of CS, LBC, and their combination. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL on 17 November 2024. Studies comparing CS, LBC, or their combination following EUS-FNA/FNB for abdominal masses were included. Diagnostic parameters, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inadequacy rates, were extracted and analyzed. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. <b>Results</b>: 16 studies (2128 patients) were included. Sensitivity for pancreatic masses was 71.4% (CI: 62.9-78.7) for CS, 74.7% (CI: 64.3-82.8) for LBC, and 86.2% (CI: 82.4-89.3) for combined methods (<i>p</i> = 0.001). For all abdominal masses, sensitivity was 76.3% (CI: 67.9-83.0) for CS, 73.6% (CI: 65.6-80.2) for LBC, and 88.0% (CI: 84.0-91.2) for combined methods (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.006). Specificity was nearly 100%. Inadequacy rates were lowest for combined methods (1.5%, CI: 0-36.2), when compared to LBC (7.7%, CI: 2.7-20.4) and CS (4.4%, CI: 2.4-7.9). Moderate bias risk was noted, primarily due to incorporation bias. Domain 3 (reference standard) of QUADAS was uniformly moderate-risk across studies. <b>Conclusions</b>: Combining CS and LBC methods improves diagnostic sensitivity and reduces sample inadequacy after EUS-guided tissue acquisition for abdominal masses, particularly pancreatic lesions. Clinical guidelines should consider recommending the combined approach to enhance diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12471235/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186685","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) is the standard method for diagnosing abdominal masses, but sample inadequacy and diagnostic accuracy remain challenges. Conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) are standard processing methods, yet their comparative effectiveness and potential combined benefit remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance and adequacy of CS, LBC, and their combination. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL on 17 November 2024. Studies comparing CS, LBC, or their combination following EUS-FNA/FNB for abdominal masses were included. Diagnostic parameters, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inadequacy rates, were extracted and analyzed. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: 16 studies (2128 patients) were included. Sensitivity for pancreatic masses was 71.4% (CI: 62.9-78.7) for CS, 74.7% (CI: 64.3-82.8) for LBC, and 86.2% (CI: 82.4-89.3) for combined methods (p = 0.001). For all abdominal masses, sensitivity was 76.3% (CI: 67.9-83.0) for CS, 73.6% (CI: 65.6-80.2) for LBC, and 88.0% (CI: 84.0-91.2) for combined methods (p ≤ 0.006). Specificity was nearly 100%. Inadequacy rates were lowest for combined methods (1.5%, CI: 0-36.2), when compared to LBC (7.7%, CI: 2.7-20.4) and CS (4.4%, CI: 2.4-7.9). Moderate bias risk was noted, primarily due to incorporation bias. Domain 3 (reference standard) of QUADAS was uniformly moderate-risk across studies. Conclusions: Combining CS and LBC methods improves diagnostic sensitivity and reduces sample inadequacy after EUS-guided tissue acquisition for abdominal masses, particularly pancreatic lesions. Clinical guidelines should consider recommending the combined approach to enhance diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals.
Unique features of this journal:
manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes.
There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.