Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnostic yield of endoscopic and EUS-guided biopsy techniques in subepithelial lesions of the upper GI tract: a systematic review.
Verloop, Cynthia A; Goos, Jacqueline A C; Bruno, Marco J; Quispel, Rutger; van Driel, Lydi M J W; Hol, Lieke.
Afiliação
  • Verloop CA; Department of Gastroenterology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: verloopc@maasstadziekenhuis.nl.
  • Goos JAC; Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam the Netherlands.
  • Bruno MJ; Department of Gastroenterology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam the Netherlands.
  • Quispel R; Department of Gastroenterology, Reinier de Graaf hospital, Delft, the Netherlands.
  • van Driel LMJW; Department of Gastroenterology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam the Netherlands.
  • Hol L; Department of Gastroenterology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 99(6): 895-911.e13, 2024 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38360118
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

AIMS:

Obtaining adequate tissue samples in subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains challenging. Several biopsy techniques are available, but a systematic review including all available techniques to obtain a histologic diagnosis of SEL is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and adverse event rates of endoscopic biopsies, EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) (EUS-FNB), and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for SELs in the upper GI tract.

METHODS:

A search strategy in multiple databases was performed. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, defined as the percentage of procedures in which histology was obtained and resulted in a definitive histopathologic diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included reported procedure-related adverse events, which were graded according to the AGREE (Adverse Events in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) classification.

RESULTS:

A total of 94 original articles were included. Studies were classified per endoscopic technique to obtain histopathology. This resulted in 8 included studies for endoscopic biopsy methods, 55 studies for EUS-FNA, 33 studies for EUS-FNB, and 26 studies for MIAB. Pooled rates for diagnostic yield were 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.8-51.2) for endoscopic biopsy, 74.6% (95% CI, 69.9-78.7) for EUS-FNA, 84.2% (95% CI, 80.7-87.2) for EUS-FNB, and 88.2% (95% CI, 84.7-91.1) for MIAB. Reported procedure-related adverse events graded AGREE II or higher were 2.8% to 3.9% for endoscopic biopsies, 1.0% to 4.5% for EUS-FNA, .9% to 7.7% for EUS-FNB, and 1.9% to 7.9% for MIAB.

CONCLUSIONS:

Based on the available evidence, MIAB and EUS-FNB seem to be most effective in terms of achieving a high diagnostic yield, with similar rates of adverse events.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Gastrointest Endosc Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Gastrointest Endosc Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article