Journal of cancer research and therapeutics · 2021
Computed tomography-guided lung biopsy: A meta-analysis of low-dose and standard-dose protocols.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Ping, Liu Jing-Mei, Zhang Ying-Ying, Hua Rong, Xia Feng-Fei, Shi Yi-Bing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the relative diagnostic utility of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and standard-dose computed tomography (SDCT)-guided lung biopsy approaches.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies published through August 2020. Data pertaining to endpoints including technical success, diagnostic performance, operative time, radiation dose, and complications, were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v5.3.
RESULTS: Three retrospective analyses and three randomized controlled trials, were included. The studies included 1977 lung lesions across 1927 patients who underwent LDCT-guided lung biopsy, and 887 lung lesions across 879 patients who underwent SDCT-guided lung biopsy. No significant differences were observed between these LDCT and SDCT groups with respect to the rates of technical success (99.0% vs. 99.5%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.82, P = 0.35,), diagnostic yield (79.6% vs. 76.2%, OR: 0.93, P = 0.47), diagnostic accuracy (96.1% vs. 96.1%, OR: 0.93, P = 0.69), operative time (mean difference [MD]: 1.04, P = 0.30), pneumothorax (19.9% vs. 21.3%, OR: 0.92, P = 0.43) or hemoptysis (4.6% vs. 5.8%, OR: 1.14, P = 0.54). Patients in the LDCT group received a significantly lower radiation dose (MD: ‒209.87, P < 0.00001) than patients in the SDCT group. Significant heterogeneity was observed with respect to the operative duration and radiation dose endpoints (I2 = 84% and 100%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Relative to SDCT-guided lung biopsy, an LDCT-guided approach is equally safe and can achieve comparable diagnostic efficacy while exposing patients to lower doses of radiation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies published through August 2020. Data pertaining to endpoints including technical success, diagnostic performance, operative time, radiation dose, and complications, were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v5.3.
RESULTS: Three retrospective analyses and three randomized controlled trials, were included. The studies included 1977 lung lesions across 1927 patients who underwent LDCT-guided lung biopsy, and 887 lung lesions across 879 patients who underwent SDCT-guided lung biopsy. No significant differences were observed between these LDCT and SDCT groups with respect to the rates of technical success (99.0% vs. 99.5%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.82, P = 0.35,), diagnostic yield (79.6% vs. 76.2%, OR: 0.93, P = 0.47), diagnostic accuracy (96.1% vs. 96.1%, OR: 0.93, P = 0.69), operative time (mean difference [MD]: 1.04, P = 0.30), pneumothorax (19.9% vs. 21.3%, OR: 0.92, P = 0.43) or hemoptysis (4.6% vs. 5.8%, OR: 1.14, P = 0.54). Patients in the LDCT group received a significantly lower radiation dose (MD: ‒209.87, P < 0.00001) than patients in the SDCT group. Significant heterogeneity was observed with respect to the operative duration and radiation dose endpoints (I2 = 84% and 100%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Relative to SDCT-guided lung biopsy, an LDCT-guided approach is equally safe and can achieve comparable diagnostic efficacy while exposing patients to lower doses of radiation.