Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Dec;60(12):3771-81. doi: 10.1007/s10620-015-3831-5. Epub 2015 Sep 4.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Biopsy for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pelvic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Author information

1
Department of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. 271914799@qq.com.
2
Department of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. selinalin35@hotmail.com.
3
Department of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. liujun_99@126.com.
4
Department of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. houxh@medmail.com.cn.
5
Department of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. qianwei63@126.com.
6
Department of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. docd720@126.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Preoperative diagnosis of pelvic lesions remains challenging despite advances in imaging technologies. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biopsy is an effective diagnostic modality for sampling the digestive tract and surrounding areas. However, a meta-analysis summarizing the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided biopsy for pelvic lesions has not been published.

AIMS:

We aimed to evaluate the utility of EUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of pelvic lesions.

METHODS:

Articles were identified via structured database search; only studies where pelvic lesions were confirmed by surgery or clinical follow-up were included. Data extracted were selected with strict criteria. A fixed-effects model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was also constructed.

RESULTS:

Ten studies containing a total of 246 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity of EUS-guided biopsy for differential diagnosis of pelvic masses was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.94), and the specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.97). The area under the SROC was 0.9631. The combined PLR, NLR, and DOR were 11.75 (95% CI 5.90-23.43), 0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.20), and 100.06 (95% CI 37.48-267.10) respectively. There is potential presence of publication bias in this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our meta-analysis shows that EUS-guided biopsy is a powerful tool for differentiating pelvic masses with a high sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, it is a safe procedure with low rate of complication, although more high-quality prospective studies are required to be done.

KEYWORDS:

Biopsy; Endoscopic ultrasound; Meta-analysis; Pelvic lesion

PMID:
26341351
DOI:
10.1007/s10620-015-3831-5
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center