How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass?: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Pancreas. 2013 Jan;42(1):20-6. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3182546e79.

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass.

Method: Data extracted from EUS-FNA studies with a criterion standard (either confirmed by surgery or appropriate follow-up) were selected. Articles were searched in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials & Database of Systematic Reviews. Pooling was conducted by both fixed- and random-effects models.

Results: Initial search identified 3610 reference articles, of these 360 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Data were extracted from 41 studies (N = 4766) which met the inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA in diagnosing the correct etiology for solid pancreatic mass was 86.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.5-87.9). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA had a pooled specificity of 95.8% (95% CI, 94.6-96.7). Positive likelihood ratio of EUS was 15.2 (95% CI, 8.5-27.3), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.13-0.21).

Conclusions: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA is an excellent diagnostic tool to detect the correct etiology for solid pancreatic masses. When available, EUS-FNA should be strongly considered as the first diagnostic tool for sampling these lesions to optimize patient management.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration*
  • Humans
  • Likelihood Functions
  • Odds Ratio
  • Pancreas / pathology*
  • Pancreatic Neoplasms / etiology
  • Pancreatic Neoplasms / pathology*
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Prognosis
  • Risk Factors
  • Sensitivity and Specificity