Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Aims: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA/B in patients with panNETs.
Methods: We conducted a computerized search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify relevant articles. The primary outcomes involved grading concordance rate, diagnostic rate, and correlation coefficient (Cohen's κ) for FNA/B samples compared with surgical specimens. Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy, mean number of passes, and adverse events.
Results: Forty-five studies involving 2978 patients were finally included. The pooled concordance rate between EUS-FNA/B and surgical grading was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80; I2=48.2%). A significantly higher level of concordance was observed in G1 subgroup (0.88, 95% CI: 0.84-0.91), whereas the G2 subgroup revealed the lowest level of agreement (0.59, 95% CI: 0.52-0.65; P < 0.001). Pooled diagnostic rate for FNA/B sampling was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86; I2=63.3%). In addition, FNB outperformed FNA in terms of sample adequacy (0.93 for FNB vs. 0.81 for FNA; P=0.007) and number of needle passes required (2.53 for FNB vs. 3.32 for FNA; P=0.013). Moreover, the overall level of agreement for grading was moderate (κ=0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.68; I2=84.5%). There were a limited number of adverse events that had minor influence on patient outcomes (0.03, 95% CI: 0.02-0.05; I2=19.2%).
Conclusions: EUS-FNA/B is a reliable approach for the diagnosis and preoperative grading of panNET, with FNB demonstrating superior performance compared with FNA.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002070 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!