Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes(LNs)located next to the gastrointestinal tract.This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy(EUS-FNB)and fine-needle aspiration(EUS-FNA)for LNs sampling.Methods:We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021.Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy;secondary outcomes were sensitivity,specificity,sample adequacy,optimal histological core procurement,number of passes,and adverse events.We performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model.The results are presented as odds ratio(OR)or mean difference along with 95%confidence interval(CI).Results:We identified nine studies(1,276 patients)in this meta-analysis.Among these patients,66.4%were male;the median age was 67 years.Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches(OR,1.31;95%CI,0.81–2.10;P=0.270).The accuracy of EUS-FNB was significantly higher when being performed with newer end-cutting needles(OR,1.87;95%CI,1.17–3.00;P=0.009)and in abdominal LNs(OR,2.48;95%CI,1.52–4.05;P<0.001)than that of EUSFNA.No difference in terms of sample adequacy was observed between the two approaches(OR,1.40;95%CI,0.46–4.26;P=0.550);however,histological core procurement and diagnostic sensitivity with EUS-FNB were significantly higher than those with EUS-FNA(OR,6.15;95%CI,1.51–25.07;P=0.010 and OR,1.87;95%CI,1.27–2.74,P=0.001).The number of needle passes needed was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB group than in the EUS-FNA group(mean difference,-0.54;95%CI,-0.97 to -0.12;P=0.010).Conclusions EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling;however,FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy.