Brush Cytology, Forceps Biopsy, or Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Diagnosis of Bile Duct Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-14 DOI:10.1007/s10620-021-07138-4
Seung Bae Yoon, Sung-Hoon Moon, Sung Woo Ko, Hyun Lim, Ho Suk Kang, Jong Hyeok Kim
{"title":"Brush Cytology, Forceps Biopsy, or Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Diagnosis of Bile Duct Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Seung Bae Yoon, Sung-Hoon Moon, Sung Woo Ko, Hyun Lim, Ho Suk Kang, Jong Hyeok Kim","doi":"10.1007/s10620-021-07138-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Endoscopic sampling is essential for tissue diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). To evaluate and compare the diagnostic sensitivities of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided brush cytology biopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with CCA. A comprehensive literature search through multiple databases was conducted for articles published between January 1995 and August 2020. The pooled rates of sensitivity for the diagnosis of CCA and of adverse events were compared among brushing, biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA. In total, 1123 patients with CCA (32 studies), 719 patients (20 studies), 358 patients (13 studies), and 422 patients (17 studies) were tested by brushing, biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA, respectively. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 56.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 48.8-63.1%, I<sup>2</sup> = 83.0%) with brushing, 67.0% (95% CI 60.2-73.5%, I<sup>2</sup> = 72.5%) with biopsy, 70.7% (95% CI 64.1-76.8%, I<sup>2</sup> = 42.7%) with brushing & biopsy, and 73.6% (95% CI 64.7-81.5%, I<sup>2</sup> = 74.7%) with EUS-FNA. The diagnostic sensitivity was significantly lower for brushing than for biopsy, brushing & biopsy, or EUS-FNA. No significant difference was noted in diagnostic sensitivities among biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA. Adverse events were comparable between the groups. Intraductal biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA had comparable efficacy and safety for the diagnosis of CCA. Brushing was the least sensitive diagnostic tool compared with intraductal biopsy or EUS-FNA. Given the modest diagnostic sensitivities of intraductal biopsy and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of CCA, further studies for complementing these techniques with biomarkers may be needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":11378,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"3284-3297"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-07138-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Endoscopic sampling is essential for tissue diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). To evaluate and compare the diagnostic sensitivities of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided brush cytology biopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with CCA. A comprehensive literature search through multiple databases was conducted for articles published between January 1995 and August 2020. The pooled rates of sensitivity for the diagnosis of CCA and of adverse events were compared among brushing, biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA. In total, 1123 patients with CCA (32 studies), 719 patients (20 studies), 358 patients (13 studies), and 422 patients (17 studies) were tested by brushing, biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA, respectively. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 56.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 48.8-63.1%, I2 = 83.0%) with brushing, 67.0% (95% CI 60.2-73.5%, I2 = 72.5%) with biopsy, 70.7% (95% CI 64.1-76.8%, I2 = 42.7%) with brushing & biopsy, and 73.6% (95% CI 64.7-81.5%, I2 = 74.7%) with EUS-FNA. The diagnostic sensitivity was significantly lower for brushing than for biopsy, brushing & biopsy, or EUS-FNA. No significant difference was noted in diagnostic sensitivities among biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA. Adverse events were comparable between the groups. Intraductal biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA had comparable efficacy and safety for the diagnosis of CCA. Brushing was the least sensitive diagnostic tool compared with intraductal biopsy or EUS-FNA. Given the modest diagnostic sensitivities of intraductal biopsy and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of CCA, further studies for complementing these techniques with biomarkers may be needed.

刷细胞学、钳活检或内镜超声引导取样诊断胆管癌:一项荟萃分析。
内镜下取样对胆管癌的组织诊断至关重要。评价并比较内镜下逆行胆管造影引导下刷细胞学活检和内镜下超声引导下细针穿刺(EUS-FNA)对CCA患者的诊断敏感性。通过多个数据库对1995年1月至2020年8月期间发表的文章进行了全面的文献检索。比较刷毛、活检、刷毛+活检和EUS-FNA对CCA诊断和不良事件的总敏感性。共对1123例CCA患者(32项研究)、719例患者(20项研究)、358例患者(13项研究)和422例患者(17项研究)分别进行了刷牙、活检、刷牙+活检和EUS-FNA检测。合并诊断敏感性为:刷牙组56.0%(95%可信区间48.8-63.1%,I2 = 83.0%),活检组67.0% (95% CI 60.2-73.5%, I2 = 72.5%),刷牙+活检组70.7% (95% CI 64.1-76.8%, I2 = 42.7%), EUS-FNA组73.6% (95% CI 64.7-81.5%, I2 = 74.7%)。刷牙诊断的敏感性明显低于活检、刷牙活检或EUS-FNA。活检、刷片活检和EUS-FNA在诊断敏感性上无显著差异。两组间不良事件具有可比性。导管内活检、刷牙活检和EUS-FNA诊断CCA的疗效和安全性相当。与导管内活检或EUS-FNA相比,刷牙是最不敏感的诊断工具。鉴于导管内活检和EUS-FNA在CCA诊断中的诊断敏感性不高,可能需要进一步的研究来补充这些技术与生物标志物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Digestive Diseases and Sciences 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
420
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Digestive Diseases and Sciences publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed, original papers addressing aspects of basic/translational and clinical research in gastroenterology, hepatology, and related fields. This well-illustrated journal features comprehensive coverage of basic pathophysiology, new technological advances, and clinical breakthroughs; insights from prominent academicians and practitioners concerning new scientific developments and practical medical issues; and discussions focusing on the latest changes in local and worldwide social, economic, and governmental policies that affect the delivery of care within the disciplines of gastroenterology and hepatology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书