Systematic review and meta-analysis of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) system in diagnosing pancreatic lesions: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy

Q4 Medicine
Sana Ahuja , Marzieh Fattahi-Darghlou , Sufian Zaheer
{"title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) system in diagnosing pancreatic lesions: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy","authors":"Sana Ahuja ,&nbsp;Marzieh Fattahi-Darghlou ,&nbsp;Sufian Zaheer","doi":"10.1016/j.patol.2025.100820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The Papanicolaou system plays a vital role in cytological evaluation, particularly in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation regarding its diagnostic accuracy in pancreatic fine needle aspirations (FNAs). This study seeks to address this gap by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) system in diagnosing pancreatic lesions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted up to March 20, 2024, using predefined search terms related to pancreas, fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB), and diagnostic accuracy. The selected articles were assessed for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis for sensitivity and specificity for each cut-off – namely, “Atypical considered positive”, “Neoplastic considered positive”, “Suspicious of Malignancy considered positive,” and “Malignant considered positive” – was performed after excluding inadequate samples in each study. To assess diagnostic accuracy, summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were constructed, and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was pooled.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 3604 cases. Sensitivity and specificity varied across the PSC categories, with the “Malignant” category showing the highest sensitivity (70%) and specificity (99%). The “Suspicious for malignancy and higher risk categories” demonstrated high sensitivity (81%) and specificity (97%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This meta-analysis underscores the accuracy of the PSC system in reporting pancreatic aspirates. It highlights the significance of the “Suspicious” and “Malignant” categories in diagnosing malignancy, as well as the “Benign” and “Atypical” categories in ruling out malignancy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":39194,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Patologia","volume":"58 3","pages":"Article 100820"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Patologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1699885525000200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The Papanicolaou system plays a vital role in cytological evaluation, particularly in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation regarding its diagnostic accuracy in pancreatic fine needle aspirations (FNAs). This study seeks to address this gap by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) system in diagnosing pancreatic lesions.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted up to March 20, 2024, using predefined search terms related to pancreas, fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB), and diagnostic accuracy. The selected articles were assessed for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis for sensitivity and specificity for each cut-off – namely, “Atypical considered positive”, “Neoplastic considered positive”, “Suspicious of Malignancy considered positive,” and “Malignant considered positive” – was performed after excluding inadequate samples in each study. To assess diagnostic accuracy, summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were constructed, and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was pooled.

Results

Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 3604 cases. Sensitivity and specificity varied across the PSC categories, with the “Malignant” category showing the highest sensitivity (70%) and specificity (99%). The “Suspicious for malignancy and higher risk categories” demonstrated high sensitivity (81%) and specificity (97%).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis underscores the accuracy of the PSC system in reporting pancreatic aspirates. It highlights the significance of the “Suspicious” and “Malignant” categories in diagnosing malignancy, as well as the “Benign” and “Atypical” categories in ruling out malignancy.
Papanicolaou细胞病理学学会(PSC)系统诊断胰腺病变的系统回顾和荟萃分析:评估诊断准确性
Papanicolaou系统在细胞学评估中起着至关重要的作用,特别是在胰腺病变的诊断中。然而,缺乏对其在胰腺细针穿刺(FNAs)诊断准确性的全面评估。本研究旨在通过进行系统回顾和荟萃分析来评估Papanicolaou细胞病理学会(PSC)系统在诊断胰腺病变方面的诊断准确性,从而解决这一差距。方法系统检索PubMed和EMBASE数据库,检索时间截止到2024年3月20日,检索词为胰腺、细针穿刺活检(fine needle biopsy, FNAB)和诊断准确性。使用QUADAS-2工具评估入选文章的偏倚风险。在排除每项研究中不足的样本后,对每个截止点的敏感性和特异性进行荟萃分析,即“非典型认为阳性”、“肿瘤认为阳性”、“可疑恶性肿瘤认为阳性”和“恶性肿瘤认为阳性”。为了评估诊断的准确性,我们构建了总受试者工作特征(sROC)曲线,并汇总了诊断优势比(DOR)。结果12项研究符合纳入标准,共计3604例。不同PSC类别的敏感性和特异性各不相同,其中“恶性”类别的敏感性(70%)和特异性(99%)最高。“怀疑为恶性及高危类别”表现出较高的敏感性(81%)和特异性(97%)。结论:本荟萃分析强调了PSC系统报告胰腺抽吸的准确性。强调了“可疑”和“恶性”分类在诊断恶性肿瘤中的意义,以及“良性”和“非典型”分类在排除恶性肿瘤中的意义。
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
Revista Espanola de Patologia
Revista Espanola de Patologia Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
34 days
×
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