The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis

M. F. Madhoun; S. B. Wani; A. Rastogi; D. Early; S. Gaddam; W. M. Tierney; J. T. Maple

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1325992

Endoscopy, Table of Contents

Endoscopy 2013; 45(02): 86-92
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325992

Original article

The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a meta-analysis

M. F. Madhoun

¹Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

,

S. B. Wani

²Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA

,

A. Rastogi

³Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Missouri, USA

,

D. Early

⁴Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA

,

S. Gaddam

⁴Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA

,

W. M. Tierney

¹Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

,

J. T. Maple

¹Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Background and study aims: It is uncertain if needle gauge impacts the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic mass lesions. Our aim was to use meta-analysis to more robustly define the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses using 22 G and 25 G needles.

Patients and methods: Studies were identified by searching nine medical databases for reports published between 1994 and 2011, using a reproducible search strategy comprised of relevant terms. Only studies comparing the overall diagnostic accuracy of 22 G vs. 25 G EUS needles that used surgical histology or at least 6 months clinical follow up for a gold standard were included. Two reviewers independently scored the identified studies for methodology and abstracted pertinent data. When required, the original investigators were contacted to provide additional data. Pooling was conducted by both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Diagnostic characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results: Eight studies involving 1292 subjects met the defined inclusion criteria. Of the 1292 patients, 799 were in the 22 G group and 565 were in the 25 G group (both needles were used in 72 patients). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the 22 G needle were 0.85 (95 %CI 0.82 – 0.88) and 1 (95 %CI 0.98 – 1) respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the 25 G needle were 0.93 (95 %CI 0.91 – 0.96) and 0.97 (95 %CI 0.93 – 0.99) respectively. The bivariate generalized linear random-effect model indicated that the 25 G needle is associated with a higher sensitivity (P = 0.0003) but comparable specificity (P = 0.97) to the 22 G needle.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests 25 G needle systems are more sensitive than 22 G needles for diagnosing pancreatic malignancy.

Full Text

References

References
1 Bentz JS, Kochman ML, Faigel DO et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided real-time fine-needle aspiration: clinicopathologic features of 60 patients. Diagn Cytopathol 1998; 18: 98-109
2 Mertz H, Gautam S. The learning curve for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 33-37
3 Itoi T, Itokawa F, Sofuni A et al. Puncture of solid pancreatic tumors guided by endoscopic ultrasonography: a pilot study series comparing Trucut and 19-gauge and 22-gauge aspiration needles. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 362-366
4 Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25
5 Database C: Review Manager (RevMan). In: 31 August 2011 edn. Available at: http://ims.cochrane.org/revman Accessed: 30 October 2012
6 Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 719-748
7 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
8 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558
9 Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F et al. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?. Psychol Methods 2006; 11: 193-206
10 Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 982-990
11 Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A et al. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 31
12 Imazu H, Uchiyama Y, Kakutani H et al. A prospective comparison of EUS-guided FNA using 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2009; 2009: 546390
13 Lee JH, Stewart J, Ross WA et al. Blinded prospective comparison of the performance of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas and peri-pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 54: 2274-2281
14 Siddiqui UD, Rossi F, Rosenthal LS et al. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1093-1097
15 Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA et al. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 445-448
16 Siddiqui AA, Lyles T, Avula H et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses in a veteran population: comparison of results with 22- and 25-gauge needles. Pancreas 2010; 39: 685-686
17 Camellini L, Carlinfante G, Azzolini F et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 709-715
18 Uehara H, Ikezawa K, Kawada N et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic malignancy in relation to the size of lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 26: 1256-1261
19 Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T et al. Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 24: 384-390
20 Fabbri C, Polifemo AM, Luigiano C et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence. Dig Liver Dis 2011; 43: 647-652
21 Kida M, Araki M, Miyazawa S et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in the same patients. J Interv Gastroenterol 2011; 1: 102-107
22 Giovannini M, Monges GM, Iglesias-Garcia J et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of a novel 22-G Echo-Tip Procore Histology EUS-needle in patients with a solid pancreatic mass. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: AB152-AB153 (Abstract)