Zhang XH, Ma SY, Liu N, Wei ZC, Gao X, Hao YJ, Liu YX, Cai YQ, Wang JH. Comparison of smear cytology with liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(14): 3308-3319 [PMID: 34002139 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i14.3308]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Jin-Hai Wang, MD, Doctor, Professor, Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, No. 157 West Fifth Road, Xi'an 710004, Shaanxi Province, China. jinhaiwang@hotmail.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Meta-Analysis
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. May 16, 2021; 9(14): 3308-3319 Published online May 16, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i14.3308
Comparison of smear cytology with liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Xiao-Hui Zhang, Shi-Yang Ma, Na Liu, Zhong-Cao Wei, Xu Gao, Yu-Jie Hao, Yi-Xin Liu, Ya-Qin Cai, Jin-Hai Wang
Xiao-Hui Zhang, Shi-Yang Ma, Na Liu, Zhong-Cao Wei, Xu Gao, Yu-Jie Hao, Yi-Xin Liu, Ya-Qin Cai, Jin-Hai Wang, Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710004, Shaanxi Province, China
Author contributions: Zhang XH and Wang JH designed the research study; Zhang XH and Wei ZC screened the articles and extracted the data; Zhang XH, Liu YX, and Cai YQ compiled the tables and figures; Zhang XH, Gao X, and Hao YJ analyzed the data; Zhang XH wrote the manuscript; Ma SY and Liu N critically modified the content of the article; All authors have read and approve the final manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: No potential conflicts of interest exist.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Jin-Hai Wang, MD, Doctor, Professor, Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, No. 157 West Fifth Road, Xi'an 710004, Shaanxi Province, China. jinhaiwang@hotmail.com
Received: November 12, 2020 Peer-review started: November 12, 2020 First decision: January 23, 2021 Revised: January 30, 2021 Accepted: March 10, 2021 Article in press: March 10, 2021 Published online: May 16, 2021
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers. The best cytological method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions is controversial.
Research motivation
Recently, numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of smear cytology (SC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic lesions yielded mixed results.
Research objectives
To compare and identify the better cytology method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions.
Research methods
A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was undertaken through July 18, 2020.
Research results
Data on a total of 1121 comparisons from 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled rates of sensitivity for SC and LBC were 78% (67%-87%) vs 75% (67%-81%), respectively. In any case, both SC and LBC exhibited a high specificity close to 100%. Inadequate samples more often appeared in LBC compared with SC. However, the LBC samples exhibited a better visual field than SC. Very few post procedure complications were observed.
Research conclusions
For EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions (particularly solid lesions), SC with Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) represents a superior diagnostic technique. If ROSE is unavailable, LBC may replace smears. The diagnostic accuracy of LBC depends on different LBC techniques.
Research perspectives
The need for more staff and material resources has limited the use of ROSE in some institutions. It makes sense to evaluate the diagnostic performance of different LBC methods for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions.
