• Users Online:5
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 270-279

EUS-guided biopsy versus confocal laser endomicroscopy in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

1 Gastro Unit, Division of Endoscopy, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
2 Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
3 Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
4 Gastro Unit, Pancreatitis Centre East, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, København, Denmark

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Bojan Kovacevic
Gastro Unit, Division of Endoscopy, Herlev Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730 Herlev
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: The authors wish to thank Danish Cancer Society, Arvid Nilsson Foundation, Ingrid Munkholm Foundation, Toyota Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Harboefonden, Tømrermester Jørgen Holm og hustru Elisa f. Hansens Mindelegat, and Herlev Hospital for their financial support, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00172

Rights and Permissions

Background and Objectives: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent incidental findings on cross-sectional imaging and represent a diagnostic challenge as different kinds of PCLs harbor a dissimilar risk of malignancy. Two diagnostic tools have recently been developed and introduced: through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic yield and performance, as well as the safety profile of the two methods. Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies with five or more patients undergoing either endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-TTNB or EUS-nCLE for a PCL. Reviews, case reports, editorials, conference abstracts, and studies on exclusively solid pancreatic lesions were excluded. Outcomes of interest were diagnostic yield and performance, safety, and technical success. Results: Twenty studies with 1023 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic yield of EUS-nCLE was higher compared to EUS-TTNB (85% vs. 74%, P < 0.0001), while diagnostic performance was high and comparable for both methods (pooled sensitivity: 80% vs. 86% and pooled specificity: 80% vs. 83% for TTNB and nCLE, respectively, P > 0.05). Pooled estimate of total adverse event (AE) rate was 5% in the TTNB group and 3% in the nCLE group, P = 0.302. Technical success rates were high and comparable (94% and 99% for EUS-TTNB and nCLE, respectively; P = 0.07). Conclusion: EUS-TTNB and EUS-nCLE have a similar safety profile with a relatively low number of AEs. Technical success, sensitivity, and specificity are comparable; however, EUS-nCLE seems to have a slightly higher diagnostic yield.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded213    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal