4.6 Review

Needle Tract Seeding after Endoscopic Ultrasound Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12092113

关键词

FNA; EUS; FNB; cancer; tumor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis study demonstrates that the incidence of needle tract seeding (NTS) after endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is very low in both pancreatic adenocarcinoma and cystic pancreatic lesions. Additionally, there is no difference in terms of metachronous peritoneal dissemination between patients who underwent EUS-TA and non-sampled patients. Therefore, EUS-TA can be safely performed in a pre-operative setting.
There is limited evidence on the incidence of needle tract seeding (NTS) in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) tissue acquisition (TA) of pancreatic lesions. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the incidence of NTS after EUS-TA. With a search of the literature up until April 2022, we identified 10 studies (13,238 patients) assessing NTS incidences in patients undergoing EUS-TA. The primary outcome was NTS incidence. The secondary outcome was a comparison in terms of peritoneal carcinomatosis incidence between patients who underwent EUS-TA and non-sampled patients. Results were expressed as pooled rates or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The pooled rate of NTS was 0.3% (95% CI 0.2-0.4%), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I-2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis based on the type of sampled lesion confirmed this finding both in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (0.4%, 0.2-0.6%) and in patients with cystic pancreatic lesions (0.3%, 0.1-0.5%). No difference in terms of metachronous peritoneal dissemination was observed between patients who underwent EUS-TA and non-sampled patients (OR 1.02, 0.72-1.46; p = 0.31), with evidence of low heterogeneity (I-2 = 16%). Rates of NTS after EUS-TA are very low; therefore, EUS-TA could be safely performed in a pre-operative setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据