Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling by macroscopic on-site evaluation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published:August 03, 2022DOI:

      Background and Aims

      Assessment of EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) is gathering attention. Studies report good diagnostic parameters with MOSE; however, the overall data are limited. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to report on the pooled diagnostic assessment parameters of EUS-guided tissue acquisition by MOSE using fine-needle biopsy sampling (FNB).


      Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2021), and studies that reported on the diagnostic assessment of EUS-guided tissue acquisition by MOSE were selected. Pooled diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated by standard meta-analysis methods following the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistics.


      Fourteen studies were included in the analysis, and 1508 lesions were biopsy sampled in 1489 patients undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition. MOSE definition included a visible core of tissue with opacity and “wormlike” features of adequate size and length (≥4 mm). The pooled accuracy of FNA and/or FNB specimens in yielding a pathologic diagnosis by MOSE was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.6-93.3; I2 = 66%), pooled sensitivity was 91.5% (95% CI, 88.6-93.6; I2 = 66%), pooled specificity was 98.9% (95% CI, 96.6-99.7; I2 = 80%), pooled positive predictive value was 98.8% (95% CI, 97.4-99.5; I2 = 33%), and pooled negative predictive value was 55.5% (95% CI, 46.9-63.9; I2 = 95%). Subgroup analyses by newer-generation FNB needles demonstrated similar pooled rates, with minimal adverse events (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.5-3.9; I2 = 21%).


      Excellent pooled diagnostic accuracy parameters were demonstrated in EUS-guided tissue acquisition by FNB using the MOSE method.


      FNB (fine-needle biopsy sampling), MOSE (macroscopic on-site evaluation), NPV (negative predictive value), PPV (positive predictive value), ROSE (rapid on-site evaluation)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Kandel P.
        • Wallace M.B.
        Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.
        J Gastroenterol. 2019; 54: 377-387
        • Puli S.R.
        • Bechtold M.L.
        • Buxbaum J.L.
        • et al.
        How good is endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass? A meta-analysis and systematic review.
        Pancreas. 2013; 42: 20-26
        • Hebert-Magee S.
        • Bae S.
        • Varadarajulu S.
        • et al.
        The presence of a cytopathologist increases the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis.
        Cytopathology. 2013; 24: 159-171
        • Matynia A.P.
        • Schmidt R.L.
        • Barraza G.
        • et al.
        Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on the adequacy of endoscopic-ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 29: 697-705
        • Chong C.C.
        • Lakhtakia S.
        • Nguyen N.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: randomized controlled trial.
        Endoscopy. 2020; 52: 856-863
        • Costa-Moreira P.
        • Vilas-Boas F.
        • Moutinho-Ribeiro P.
        • et al.
        Macroscopic on-site evaluation during EUS-fine needle biopsy with combined cyto and histological analysis may overcome the need of rapid on-site evaluation.
        Endosc Ultrasound. 2019; 8: 432
        • Crinò S.F.
        • Le Grazie M.
        • Manfrin E.
        • et al.
        Randomized trial comparing fork-tip and side-fenestrated needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2020; 92: 648-658
        • Di Leo M.
        • Crinò S.F.
        • Bernardoni L.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided core biopsies of pancreatic solid masses using a new fork-tip needle: a multicenter prospective study.
        Dig Liver Dis. 2019; 51: 1275-1280
        • Gambaccini D.
        • Palmeri M.
        • Furbetta N.
        • et al.
        EUS-FNA wet technique for the pre-operative diagnosis of 31 solid pancreatic tumors: Pisa experience.
        Pancreatology. 2018; 18: 43
        • Iwashita T.
        • Yasuda I.
        • Mukai T.
        • et al.
        Macroscopic on-site quality evaluation of biopsy specimens to improve the diagnostic accuracy during EUS-guided FNA using a 19-gauge needle for solid lesions: a single-center prospective pilot study (MOSE study).
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81: 177-185
        • Ki E.-L.L.
        • Lemaistre A.-I.
        • Fumex F.
        • et al.
        Macroscopic onsite evaluation using endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy as an alternative to rapid onsite evaluation.
        Endosc Int Open. 2019; 7: E189-E194
        • Kim H.J.
        • Jung Y.S.
        • Park J.H.
        • et al.
        Endosonographer’s macroscopic evaluation of EUS-FNAB specimens after interactive cytopathologic training: a single-center prospective validation cohort study.
        Surg Endosc. 2016; 30: 4184-4192
        • Lamonaca L.
        • Mangiavillano B.
        • Crinò S.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid lesions with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE): a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.
        Dig Liver Dis. 2022; 54: S66
        • Mangiavillano B.
        • Frazzoni L.
        • Togliani T.
        • et al.
        Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of specimens from solid lesions acquired during EUS-FNB: multicenter study and comparison between needle gauges.
        Endosc Int Open. 2021; 9: E901-E906
        • Naidu J.
        • Phan A.
        • Lim A.
        Comparisoin of diagnostic outcomes of different core needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: 22-gauge reverse bevel versus 22-gauge Franseen needle.
        J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 34: 10-11
        • Oh D.
        • Seo D.-W.
        • Hong S.-M.
        • et al.
        The impact of macroscopic on-site evaluation using filter paper in EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy.
        Endosc Ultrasound. 2019; 8: 342
        • Rizza S.
        • Sacco M.
        • Rizzi F.
        • et al.
        Impact of macroscopic on-site evaluation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of pancreatic and extrapancreatic solid lesions.
        Endoscopy. 2021; 53: S29-S30
        • So H.
        • Seo D.-W.
        • Hwang J.S.
        • et al.
        Macroscopic on-site evaluation after EUS-guided fine needle biopsy may replace rapid on-site evaluation.
        Endosc Ultrasound. 2021; 10: 111
        • Page M.J.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372: n71
        • Stroup D.F.
        • Berlin J.A.
        • Morton S.C.
        • et al.
        Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.
        JAMA. 2000; 283: 2008-2012
        • Whiting P.F.
        • Rutjes A.W.
        • Westwood M.E.
        • et al.
        QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 529-536
        • DerSimonian R.
        • Laird N.
        Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
        Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7: 177-188
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Thompson S.G.
        • Deeks J.J.
        • et al.
        Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
        Br Med J. 2003; 327: 557
        • Polkowski M.
        • Jenssen C.
        • Kaye P.
        • et al.
        Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical guideline—March 2017.
        Endoscopy. 2017; 49: 989-1006
        • Facciorusso A.
        • Wani S.
        • Triantafyllou K.
        • et al.
        Comparative accuracy of needle sizes and designs for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 90: 893-903
        • Facciorusso A.
        • Del Prete V.
        • Buccino V.R.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis.
        Endosc Int Open. 2019; 7: E1221-E1230
        • Mohan B.P.
        • Shakhatreh M.
        • Garg R.
        • et al.
        Comparison of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid mass lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Endosc Ultrasound. 2019; 8: 382


        • Bramer W.M.
        • Giustini D.
        • de Jonge G.B.
        • et al.
        De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote [Erratum: J Med Libr Assoc 2017 Jan;105(1):111].
        J Med Libr Assoc. 2016; 104: 240-243