Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Mar;97(13):e0207.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010207.

Fine needle biopsy is superior to fine needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound guided sampling of pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hong Li  1 , Wei Li, Qiu-Yuan Zhou, Bin Fan
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Fine needle biopsy is superior to fine needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound guided sampling of pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hong Li et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and EUS guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) in sampling pancreatic masses is still controversial.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes of interest (specimen adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, complications, and technical success), while mean difference (MD) and 95% CI were pooled for continuous variables (number of needle passes required for diagnosis).

Results: Eleven RCTs were identified with a total of 694 EUS-FNA cases and 688 EUS-FNB cases. Compared with EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB had a better specimen adequacy (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.27-2.64), higher diagnostic accuracy (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.17-2.26), and fewer number of needle passes (MD: 0.69, 95% CI: 1.18 to 0.20). No significant difference was found in complications (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.27-3.78) and technical success (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-1.07).

Conclusion: EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in sampling pancreatic masses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Forrest plot for specimen adequacy between FNA and FNB in sampling pancreatic masses. FNA = fine needle aspiration, FNB = fine needle biopsy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forrest plot for diagnostic accuracy between FNA and FNB in sampling pancreatic masses. FNA = fine needle aspiration, FNB = fine needle biopsy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forrest plot for number of needle passes required for diagnosis between FNA and FNB in sampling pancreatic masses. FNA = fine needle aspiration, FNB = fine needle biopsy.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forrest plot for complications between FNA and FNB in sampling pancreatic masses. FNA = fine needle aspiration, FNB = fine needle biopsy.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forrest plot for technical success between FNA and FNB in sampling pancreatic masses. FNA = fine needle aspiration, FNB = fine needle biopsy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hariharan D, Saied A, Kocher HM. Analysis of mortality rates for pancreatic cancer across the world. HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:58–62. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ngamruengphong S, Li F, Zhou Y, et al. EUS and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: a population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:78–83. - PubMed
    1. Othman MO, Wallace MB. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2012;41:179–88. - PubMed
    1. Siddiqui AA, Brown LJ, Hong SK, et al. Relationship of pancreatic mass size and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:3370–5. - PubMed
    1. Wang J, Zhao S, Chen Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration versus endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy in sampling pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e7452. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms