Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound likely does not improve diagnostic adequacy during endoscopic ultrasound guided tissue acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Solid pancreatic masses are sampled through tissue acquisition by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Inadequate samples may significantly delay diagnosis, increasing costs and carrying risks to the patients. AIM: assess the diagnostic adequacy of tissue acquisition using contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) compared to conventional EUS. METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched in November 2023. Studies comparing diagnostic adequacy, accuracy and safety using CEH-EUS versus conventional EUS for tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RoB2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized studies, level of evidence using the GRADE approach, Odds Ratios (RR) with 95 % Confidence Intervals (CI) calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. I2 quantified heterogeneity. RESULTS: The search identified 3858 records; nine studies (1160 patients) were included. OR for achieving an adequate sample was 1.467 (CI: 0.850-2.533), for randomized trials 0.902 (CI: 0.541-1.505), for non-randomized 2.396 (CI: 0.916-6.264), with significant subgroup difference. OR for diagnostic accuracy was 1.326 (CI: 0.890-1977), for randomized trials 0.997 (CI: 0.593-1.977) and for non-randomized studies 1.928 (CI: 1.096-3.393), significant subgroup difference (p = 0.0467). No differences were observed for technical failures or adverse events. Heterogeneity was low, risk of bias "low" to "some concerns" for most outcomes, mostly moderate for non-randomized studies. CONCLUSION: Non-randomized studies indicated differences in favor of contrast-enhanced EUS, randomized studies showed no difference in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy or sensitivity when using CEH-EUS.

Psychological intervention improves quality of life in patients with early-stage cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

The effectiveness of psychological interventions (PI) for malignant diseases is controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect of PI on survival and quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer. We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing PI to standard care (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021282327). Outcomes were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and different domains of QoL. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the provider-, type-, environment-, duration of intervention; cancer stage, and type. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. The OS and RFS did not differ significantly between the two groups (OS:HR = 0.97; CI 0.87-1.08; RFS:HR = 0.99; CI 0.84-1.16). However, there was significant improvement in the intervention group in all the analyzed domains of QoL; in the global (SMD = 0.65; CI 0.35-0.94), emotional (SMD = 0.64; CI 0.33-0.95), social (SMD = 0.32; CI 0.13-0.51) and physical (SMD = 0.33; CI 0.05-0.60) domains. The effect of PI on QoL was generally positive immediately, 12 and 24 weeks after intervention, but the effect decreased over time and was no longer found significant at 48 weeks. The results were better in the breast cancer group and early stages of cancer. PIs do not prolong survival, but they significantly improve the QoL of cancer patients. PI should be added as standard of care 3-4 times a year, at least for patients with early-stage cancer.