Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the World Health Organization reporting system for soft tissue cytopathology.

Q2 Medicine
Sana Ahuja, Marzieh Fattahi-Darghlou, Pragun Ahuja, Rhea Ahuja, Sufian Zaheer
{"title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the World Health Organization reporting system for soft tissue cytopathology.","authors":"Sana Ahuja, Marzieh Fattahi-Darghlou, Pragun Ahuja, Rhea Ahuja, Sufian Zaheer","doi":"10.1016/j.jasc.2025.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The WHO recently proposed a standardized reporting system for soft tissue cytopathology to enhance diagnostic consistency, malignancy risk stratification, and communication between clinicians and pathologists. This 6-tiered system-nondiagnostic, benign, atypical, soft tissue neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential (STNUMP), suspicious for malignancy, and malignant-assigns estimated risks of malignancy to each category. Its diagnostic performance in soft tissue fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has not yet been comprehensively evaluated.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of the WHO system in soft tissue FNAs. PubMed and EMBASE were searched through April 30, 2025. Included studies evaluated FNAs of soft tissue lesions with histopathology/clinicoradiologic follow-up as reference. Diagnostic performance was assessed at 3 thresholds: (1) \"Malignant\", (2) \"Suspicious for malignancy\" and above, and (3) \"STNUMP\" and above. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies met inclusion criteria. ROMs ranged from 4% (\"Benign\") to 98% (\"Malignant.\") Sensitivity and specificity were 59% and 99% (AUC: 77%) for the \"Malignant\"-only threshold. Including \"Suspicious\" improved sensitivity to 75% (specificity: 98%, AUC: 84%). The broadest threshold yielded 85% sensitivity and 94% specificity (AUC: 82%). DORs ranged from 84.99 to 289.02. \"Nondiagnostic\" cases had a 33% ROM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The WHO system shows robust diagnostic accuracy for soft tissue FNA. Optimal performance occurs when \"Suspicious\" and higher categories are treated as positive. High ROM in nondiagnostic cases highlights the need for adequate sampling.</p>","PeriodicalId":38262,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasc.2025.08.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The WHO recently proposed a standardized reporting system for soft tissue cytopathology to enhance diagnostic consistency, malignancy risk stratification, and communication between clinicians and pathologists. This 6-tiered system-nondiagnostic, benign, atypical, soft tissue neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential (STNUMP), suspicious for malignancy, and malignant-assigns estimated risks of malignancy to each category. Its diagnostic performance in soft tissue fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has not yet been comprehensively evaluated.

Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of the WHO system in soft tissue FNAs. PubMed and EMBASE were searched through April 30, 2025. Included studies evaluated FNAs of soft tissue lesions with histopathology/clinicoradiologic follow-up as reference. Diagnostic performance was assessed at 3 thresholds: (1) "Malignant", (2) "Suspicious for malignancy" and above, and (3) "STNUMP" and above. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.

Results: Four studies met inclusion criteria. ROMs ranged from 4% ("Benign") to 98% ("Malignant.") Sensitivity and specificity were 59% and 99% (AUC: 77%) for the "Malignant"-only threshold. Including "Suspicious" improved sensitivity to 75% (specificity: 98%, AUC: 84%). The broadest threshold yielded 85% sensitivity and 94% specificity (AUC: 82%). DORs ranged from 84.99 to 289.02. "Nondiagnostic" cases had a 33% ROM.

Conclusions: The WHO system shows robust diagnostic accuracy for soft tissue FNA. Optimal performance occurs when "Suspicious" and higher categories are treated as positive. High ROM in nondiagnostic cases highlights the need for adequate sampling.

世界卫生组织软组织细胞病理学报告系统诊断准确性的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
WHO最近提出了一个软组织细胞病理学标准化报告系统,以提高诊断一致性、恶性肿瘤风险分层以及临床医生和病理学家之间的沟通。这个6级系统——非诊断性、良性、非典型、不确定恶性潜能的软组织肿瘤(STNUMP)、可疑恶性肿瘤和恶性肿瘤——将恶性肿瘤的估计风险分配到每个类别。其在软组织细针抽吸(FNA)中的诊断性能尚未得到全面评价。材料和方法:我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估WHO系统在软组织FNAs中的诊断性能。PubMed和EMBASE检索截止到2025年4月30日。纳入的研究以组织病理学/临床放射学随访为参考,评估软组织病变的FNAs。诊断表现按3个阈值进行评估:(1)“恶性”,(2)“疑似恶性”及以上,(3)“STNUMP”及以上。使用随机效应模型计算合并敏感性、特异性、曲线下面积(AUC)和诊断优势比。结果:4项研究符合纳入标准。rom的范围从4%(良性)到98%(恶性)。仅“恶性”阈值的敏感性和特异性分别为59%和99% (AUC: 77%)。包括“可疑”将敏感性提高到75%(特异性:98%,AUC: 84%)。最广泛的阈值为85%的灵敏度和94%的特异性(AUC: 82%)。DORs范围为84.99 ~ 289.02。“非诊断性”病例的rom为33%。结论:WHO系统对软组织FNA的诊断准确性很强。当“可疑”和更高的类别被视为积极时,就会出现最佳表现。非诊断性病例的高ROM突出了充分采样的必要性。
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
Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology
Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
40 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信