Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis

• Main Authors: Andrea Lisotti, Claudio Ricci, Marta Serrani, Claudio Calvanese, Sandro Sferrazza, Nicole Brighi, Riccardo Casadei, Pietro Fusaroli
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019-04-01
• Series: Endoscopy International Open
• Online Access: http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-0854-3785
• ISSN: 2364-3722; 2196-9736

Background The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) is crucial for patient management and clinical outcome. The use of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been evaluated in several studies with diverse results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) in this setting. Methods A systematic electronic search was performed, including all original papers dealing with assessment of the nature of the LNs using CE-EUS or CH-EUS. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. The Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve method was used to calculate the area under the curve. Statistical analysis was carried out using Meta-Disc V.1.4, Stata V.12.0 and Review Manager V.5.2. Results Among 210 pertinent studies, four (336 patients) were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 82.1 % (75.1 – 87.7 %) and pooled specificity was 90.7 % (85.9 – 94.3 %) with significant heterogeneity found in sensitivity; the positive-likelihood ratio (LR) was 7.77 (5.09 – 11.85) and the negative-LR was 0.15 (0.05 – 0.46); the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 54 (15 – 190). Subgroup analysis including studies performed using CH-EUS (two studies, 177 LNs) showed a pooled sensitivity of 87.7 % (77.0 – 93.9 %) and a pooled specificity of 91.8 % (84.5 % – 96.4 %) with no significant heterogeneity; the pooled positive-LR was 9.51 (4.95 – 18.28) and the pooled negative-LR was 0.14 (0.06 – 0.35); pooled DOR was 68.42 (15.5 – 301.4). Conclusions From these data, CE-EUS is not recommended due to inadequate sensitivity. On the other hand, CH-EUS studies showed optimal accuracy (pooled sensitivity 87.7 % and specificity 91.8 %), comparable to elastography and even EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), suggesting a role in the diagnostic algorithm.