Single-incision needle-knife biopsy for the diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Naga, Yassin; Dhindsa, Banreet; Deliwala, Smit; Tun, Kyaw Min; Dhaliwal, Amaninder; Ramai, Daryl; Bhat, Ishfaq; Singh, Shailender; Chandan, Saurabh; Adler, Douglas G.

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2022.11.021

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…endoscopic submucosal dissection. Moreover, the major adverse events observed in these studies are in contrast to the excellent safety profile observed with EUS-guided techniques and SINK in our meta-analysis, where no major adverse event was observed, as also confirmed in a recent meta-analysis of seven studies [33].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a network meta-analysis

Facciorusso,

Crinò,

Fugazza

et al. 2023

Endoscopy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: There is limited evidence on the comparative diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue sampling techniques of subepithelial lesions (SELs). We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare these techniques. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of bite-on-bite biopsy, mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB), endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), or EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Overall, 8 RCTs were identified. EUS-FNB resulted significantly superior to EUS-FNA in terms of sample adequacy (RR 1.20, 1.05-1.45), whereas none of the other techniques significantly outperformed EUS-FNA. Additionally, bite-on-bite biopsy was significantly inferior to EUS-FNB (RR 0.55, 0.33-0.98). Overall, EUS-FNB resulted as the best technique (SUCRA 0.90) followed by MIAB (SUCRA 0.83), whereas bite-on-bite biopsy showed the poorest performance. When considering lesions <2 cm, MIAB but not EUS-FNB showed significantly higher accuracy rates as compared to EUS-FNA (RR 1.68, 1.02-2.88). Overall, MIAB ranked as the best intervention for lesions < 2 cm (SUCRA score 0.86 for adequacy and 0.91 for accuracy), with EUS-FNB only slightly superior to EUS-FNA. When rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) was available, no difference among EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA and MIAB was observed. Conclusion: EUS-FNB and MIAB seem to provide better performance, while bite-on-bite sampling is significantly inferior to the other techniques. MIAB seems to be the best option for smaller lesions, whereas EUS-FNA remains competitive when ROSE is available.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a network meta-analysis

Facciorusso,

Crinò,

Fugazza

et al. 2023

Endoscopy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, the tissue sampling and histological diagnosis rates of MIAB were sufficiently high at 96% and 92%, respectively, and comparable to those previ-ously reported. 11,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] In addition, the diagnostic rate for lesions ≥10 mm and <20 mm was particularly good at 94%, which was higher than that of EUS-FNA at 67%-71%. 13,15 Considering the increasing number of small SELs as candidates for less-invasive surgical removal, the favorable diagnostic rate for lesions <20 mm must be a valuable advantage of MIAB.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Regarding the adverse events, postoperative bleeding occurred in one case (2%) in this study, which seemed lower than those of previous studies (0%-6.7%). 11,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Our lower adverse event rate may be because we prescribed antisecretory agents for 2 weeks after the procedure, but we are not sure whether the use of these agents is truly effective in MIAB due to the small number of cases in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Mucosal incision‐assisted biopsy (MIAB), also called single‐incision needle‐knife biopsy (SINK biopsy), is an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)‐associated tissue sampling technique in which the epithelium covering SELs is cut and the tissue directly sampled with biopsy forceps from the exposed tumor. Previous studies have reported that the diagnostic ability of MIAB for SELs is 82%–93%, which is comparable to that of EUS‐FNA, and 72%–93% in cases smaller than 20 mm, which is even higher than EUS‐FNA 11,12–19 . In 2022, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline for SELs cited MIAB as an alternative method for tissue sampling of SELs to EUS‐FNA 20 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Previous studies have reported that the diagnostic ability of MIAB for SELs is 82%-93%, which is comparable to that of EUS-FNA, and 72%-93% in cases smaller than 20 mm, which is even higher than EUS-FNA. 11,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] In 2022, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline for SELs cited MIAB as an alternative method for tissue sampling of SELs to EUS-FNA. 20 In contrast, MIAB for SELs in Japan is still controversial due to a lack of evidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Technical outcomes and postprocedural courses of mucosal incision‐assisted biopsy for possible gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A series of 48 cases (with video)

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveMucosal incision‐assisted biopsy (MIAB) has been introduced as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration for tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions. However, there have been few reports on MIAB, and the evidence is lacking, particularly in small lesions. In this case series, we investigated the technical outcomes and postprocedural influences of MIAB for gastric subepithelial lesions 10 mm or greater in size.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed cases with the intraluminal growth type of possible gastrointestinal stromal tumors, in which MIAB was performed at a single institution between October 2020 and August 2022. Technical success, adverse events, and clinical courses following the procedure were evaluated.ResultsIn 48 MIAB cases with a median tumor diameter of 16 mm, the success rate of tissue sampling and the diagnostic rate were 96% and 92%, respectively. Two biopsies were considered sufficient for making the definitive diagnosis. Postoperative bleeding occurred in one case (2%). In 24 cases, surgery has performed a median of two months after MIAB, and no unfavorable findings caused by MIAB were seen intraoperatively. Finally, 23 cases were histologically diagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and no patients who underwent MIAB experienced recurrence or metastasis during a median observation period of 13 months.ConclusionsThe data indicated that MIAB appears feasible, safe, and useful for histological diagnosis of gastric intraluminal growth types of possible gastrointestinal stromal tumors, even those of a small size. Postprocedural clinical effects were considered negligible.

show abstract

Colorectal EUS

Mahajan,

Weston,

Kongkam

et al. 2024

Endoscopic Ultrasonography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single-incision needle-knife biopsy for the diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 32 publications

Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a network meta-analysis

Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a network meta-analysis

Technical outcomes and postprocedural courses of mucosal incision‐assisted biopsy for possible gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A series of 48 cases (with video)

Colorectal EUS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About