Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative methods for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: A systematic review & meta-analysis

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Gavin P. Dowling , Cian M. Hehir , Gordon R. Daly , Sandra Hembrecht , Stephen Keelan , Katie Giblin , Maen M. Alrawashdeh , Fiona Boland , Arnold D.K. Hill
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative methods for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: A systematic review & meta-analysis","authors":"Gavin P. Dowling ,&nbsp;Cian M. Hehir ,&nbsp;Gordon R. Daly ,&nbsp;Sandra Hembrecht ,&nbsp;Stephen Keelan ,&nbsp;Katie Giblin ,&nbsp;Maen M. Alrawashdeh ,&nbsp;Fiona Boland ,&nbsp;Arnold D.K. Hill","doi":"10.1016/j.breast.2024.103749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>There are a wide variety of intraoperative techniques available in breast surgery to achieve low rates for positive margins of excision. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the pooled diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative breast margin assessment techniques that have been evaluated in clinical practice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative margin assessment techniques. Only clinical studies with raw diagnostic accuracy data as compared with final permanent section histopathology were included in the meta-analysis. A bivariate model for diagnostic meta-analysis was used to determine overall pooled sensitivity and specificity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Sixty-one studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Cytology demonstrated the best diagnostic accuracy, with pooled sensitivity of 0.92 (95 % CI 0.77–0.98) and a pooled specificity of 0.95 (95 % CI 0.90–0.97). The findings also indicate good diagnostic accuracy for optical spectroscopy, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95 % CI 0.76–0.93) and a pooled specificity of 0.92 (95 % CI 0.82–0.97).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Pooled data indicate that optical spectroscopy, cytology and frozen section have the greatest diagnostic accuracy of currently available intraoperative margin assessment techniques. However, long turnaround time for results and their resource intensive nature has prevented widespread adoption of these methods. The aim of emerging technologies is to compete with the diagnostic accuracy of these established techniques, while improving speed and usability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9093,"journal":{"name":"Breast","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 103749"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000808/pdfft?md5=cbdf46a66ed968fd34d72e6d33ec0f59&pid=1-s2.0-S0960977624000808-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000808","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

There are a wide variety of intraoperative techniques available in breast surgery to achieve low rates for positive margins of excision. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the pooled diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative breast margin assessment techniques that have been evaluated in clinical practice.

Methods

This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative margin assessment techniques. Only clinical studies with raw diagnostic accuracy data as compared with final permanent section histopathology were included in the meta-analysis. A bivariate model for diagnostic meta-analysis was used to determine overall pooled sensitivity and specificity.

Results

Sixty-one studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Cytology demonstrated the best diagnostic accuracy, with pooled sensitivity of 0.92 (95 % CI 0.77–0.98) and a pooled specificity of 0.95 (95 % CI 0.90–0.97). The findings also indicate good diagnostic accuracy for optical spectroscopy, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95 % CI 0.76–0.93) and a pooled specificity of 0.92 (95 % CI 0.82–0.97).

Conclusion

Pooled data indicate that optical spectroscopy, cytology and frozen section have the greatest diagnostic accuracy of currently available intraoperative margin assessment techniques. However, long turnaround time for results and their resource intensive nature has prevented widespread adoption of these methods. The aim of emerging technologies is to compete with the diagnostic accuracy of these established techniques, while improving speed and usability.

乳腺癌手术中术中边缘评估方法的诊断准确性:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
目的:乳腺手术中有多种术中技术可实现较低的切除边缘阳性率。本系统综述旨在确定临床实践中已评估过的术中乳腺边缘评估技术的诊断准确性:本研究按照 PRISMA 指南进行。对文献进行了系统检索,以确定评估术中边缘评估技术诊断准确性的研究。荟萃分析只纳入了与最终永久切片组织病理学相比较的原始诊断准确性数据的临床研究。采用双变量诊断荟萃分析模型来确定总体汇总灵敏度和特异性:有 61 项研究符合纳入本系统综述和荟萃分析的条件。细胞学的诊断准确性最高,汇总灵敏度为 0.92(95 % CI 0.77-0.98),汇总特异性为 0.95(95 % CI 0.90-0.97)。研究结果还表明,光学光谱法具有良好的诊断准确性,汇总敏感性为 0.86(95 % CI 0.76-0.93),汇总特异性为 0.92(95 % CI 0.82-0.97):汇总数据显示,在目前可用的术中边缘评估技术中,光学光谱、细胞学和冰冻切片的诊断准确性最高。然而,由于这些方法需要很长时间才能得出结果,而且需要大量资源,因此无法得到广泛应用。新兴技术的目标是与这些成熟技术的诊断准确性竞争,同时提高速度和可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Breast
Breast 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Breast is an international, multidisciplinary journal for researchers and clinicians, which focuses on translational and clinical research for the advancement of breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all stages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信