Diagnostic Value of Qualitative and Quantitative Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography for the Evaluation of Lymph Nodes: A Meta-analysis.

Binglan Zhang, Chenglong Zhang, Pan Li, Fuping Zhu
{"title":"Diagnostic Value of Qualitative and Quantitative Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography for the Evaluation of Lymph Nodes: A Meta-analysis.","authors":"Binglan Zhang, Chenglong Zhang, Pan Li, Fuping Zhu","doi":"10.15403/jgld-5754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The differential diagnosis of benign and malignant deep lymph nodes (LNs) has been a significant challenge up until now. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography is a real-time imaging technique evaluated in several studies with diverse results. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the performance of EUS elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant deep LNs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All the eligible studies were searched by PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR). The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to examine the accuracy of qualitative and quantitative EUS elastography.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eleven studies including 599 patients and 943 LNs were analyzed. In studies using the qualitative color pattern as the diagnostic standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LR were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-0.86)], 0.92 (95%CI: 0.89-0.94), 7.83 (95%CI: 3.58-17.09) and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.14-0.34), respectively. In studies using the quantitative value as the diagnostic standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LR were 0.80 (95%CI: 0.74-0.86) and 0.87 (95%CI: 0.82-0.92), 5.63 (95%CI: 3.46-9.17) and 0.23 (95%CI: 0.12-0.44), respectively. The summary DOR and the AUC were 48.73 (95%CI: 21.83-108.80) and 0.933 (Q*=0.869) for qualitative EUS elastography, 33.35 (95% CI: 12.81-86.87) and 0.923 (Q*=0.857) for quantitative EUS elastography.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-analysis shows that both qualitative and quantitative EUS elastography have high accuracy in the detection of malignant deep LNs, which could be used as a valuable complementary method to EUS-FNA for the differentiation of deep LNs in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":94081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases : JGLD","volume":"33 4","pages":"563-570"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases : JGLD","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15403/jgld-5754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: The differential diagnosis of benign and malignant deep lymph nodes (LNs) has been a significant challenge up until now. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography is a real-time imaging technique evaluated in several studies with diverse results. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the performance of EUS elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant deep LNs.

Methods: All the eligible studies were searched by PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR). The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to examine the accuracy of qualitative and quantitative EUS elastography.

Results: A total of eleven studies including 599 patients and 943 LNs were analyzed. In studies using the qualitative color pattern as the diagnostic standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LR were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-0.86)], 0.92 (95%CI: 0.89-0.94), 7.83 (95%CI: 3.58-17.09) and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.14-0.34), respectively. In studies using the quantitative value as the diagnostic standard, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LR were 0.80 (95%CI: 0.74-0.86) and 0.87 (95%CI: 0.82-0.92), 5.63 (95%CI: 3.46-9.17) and 0.23 (95%CI: 0.12-0.44), respectively. The summary DOR and the AUC were 48.73 (95%CI: 21.83-108.80) and 0.933 (Q*=0.869) for qualitative EUS elastography, 33.35 (95% CI: 12.81-86.87) and 0.923 (Q*=0.857) for quantitative EUS elastography.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows that both qualitative and quantitative EUS elastography have high accuracy in the detection of malignant deep LNs, which could be used as a valuable complementary method to EUS-FNA for the differentiation of deep LNs in the future.

定性和定量内镜超声弹性成像对淋巴结评估的诊断价值:荟萃分析。
背景与目的:良恶性深部淋巴结的鉴别诊断一直是一个重大的挑战。内镜超声(EUS)弹性成像是一种实时成像技术,在几项研究中得到了不同的结果。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估EUS弹性成像对良性和恶性深部LNs鉴别的性能。方法:通过PubMed、Medline、Embase和Cochrane图书馆检索所有符合条件的研究。进行荟萃分析以获得合并的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性似然比(LR)。采用诊断优势比(DOR)和曲线下面积(AUC)来检验定性和定量EUS弹性成像的准确性。结果:共分析了11项研究,包括599例患者和943例患者。在以定性颜色模式作为诊断标准的研究中,合并敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性LR分别为0.82(95%可信区间(CI): 0.77 ~ 0.86)、0.92 (95%CI: 0.89 ~ 0.94)、7.83 (95%CI: 3.58 ~ 17.09)和0.22 (95%CI: 0.14 ~ 0.34)。在以定量值作为诊断标准的研究中,合并的敏感性为0.80 (95%CI: 0.74 ~ 0.86),特异性为0.87 (95%CI: 0.82 ~ 0.92),阳性LR为5.63 (95%CI: 3.46 ~ 9.17),阴性LR为0.23 (95%CI: 0.12 ~ 0.44)。定性超声弹性成像的DOR和AUC分别为48.73 (95%CI: 21.83 ~ 108.80)和0.933 (Q*=0.869),定量超声弹性成像的DOR和AUC分别为33.35 (95%CI: 12.81 ~ 86.87)和0.923 (Q*=0.857)。结论:我们的荟萃分析显示,定性和定量EUS弹性成像对恶性深部LNs的检测准确率较高,可作为未来EUS- fna鉴别深部LNs的有价值的补充方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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