The British journal of surgery · 2018
Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in diagnosing axillary lymph node metastasis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Balasubramanian I, Fleming C A, Corrigan M A, Redmond H P, Kerin M J, Lowery A J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node status remains a significant prognostic indicator in breast cancer. Here, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA) and ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) in axillary staging was compared.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken of all published studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of US-CNB and US-FNA of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Studies were included if raw data were available on the diagnostic performance of both US-FNA and US-CNB, and compared with final histology results. Relevant data were extracted from each study for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US-FNA and US-CNB were obtained using a bivariable model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) graphs were created to confirm diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: Data on a total of 1353 patients from six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. US-CNB was superior to US-FNA in diagnosing axillary nodal metastases: sensitivity 88 (95 per cent c.i. 84 to 91) versus 74 (70 to 78) per cent respectively. Both US-CNB and US-FNA had a high specificity of 100 per cent. Reported complication rates were significantly higher for US-CNB compared with US-FNA (7·1 versus 1·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Conversely, the requirement for repeat diagnostic procedures was significantly greater for US-FNA (4·0 versus 0·5 per cent; P < 0·001).
CONCLUSION: US-CNB is a superior diagnostic technique to US-FNA for axillary staging in breast cancer.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken of all published studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of US-CNB and US-FNA of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Studies were included if raw data were available on the diagnostic performance of both US-FNA and US-CNB, and compared with final histology results. Relevant data were extracted from each study for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US-FNA and US-CNB were obtained using a bivariable model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) graphs were created to confirm diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: Data on a total of 1353 patients from six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. US-CNB was superior to US-FNA in diagnosing axillary nodal metastases: sensitivity 88 (95 per cent c.i. 84 to 91) versus 74 (70 to 78) per cent respectively. Both US-CNB and US-FNA had a high specificity of 100 per cent. Reported complication rates were significantly higher for US-CNB compared with US-FNA (7·1 versus 1·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Conversely, the requirement for repeat diagnostic procedures was significantly greater for US-FNA (4·0 versus 0·5 per cent; P < 0·001).
CONCLUSION: US-CNB is a superior diagnostic technique to US-FNA for axillary staging in breast cancer.