Comparison of standard vs auxiliary (contrast or elastography) endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is the most common modality for tissue acquisition from pancreatic masses. Despite high specificity, sensitivity remains less than 90%. Auxiliary techniques like elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS may guide tissue acquisition from viable tumor tissue and improve the diagnostic outcomes theoretically. However, data regarding the same have shown conflicting results.

Aim: To compare the diagnostic outcomes of auxiliary-EUS-FNA/B to standard EUS-FNA/B for pancreatic lesions.

Methods: The electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from inception to February 2024 for all relevant studies comparing diagnostic outcomes of auxiliary-EUS-FNA/B to standard EUS-FNA/B for pancreatic lesions. A bivariate hierarchical model was used to perform the meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 10 studies were identified. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operated curve (AUROC) for standard EUS-FNA/B were 0.82 (95%CI: 0.79-0.85), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.96-1.00), and 0.97 (95%CI: 0.95-0.98), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC for EUS-FNA/B with auxiliary techniques were 0.86 (95%CI: 0.83-0.89), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.94-1.00), and 0.96 (95%CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively. Comparing the two diagnostic modalities, sensitivity [Risk ratio (RR): 1.04, 95%CI: 0.99-1.09], specificity (RR: 1.00, 95%CI: 0.99-1.01), and diagnostic accuracy (RR: 1.03, 95%CI: 0.98-1.09) were comparable.

Conclusion: Analysis of the currently available literature did not show any additional advantage of EUS-FNA/B with auxiliary techniques for pancreatic solid lesions over standard EUS-FNA/B. Further randomized studies are required to demonstrate the benefit of auxiliary techniques before they can be recommended for routine practice.