Intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer treated with systemic neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PATHOLOGY
Mariela Huerta-Rosario, Carlos Quispe-Vicuña, Dante Julca-Marín, Carlos J Zumaran-Nuñez, Hans Baltazar-Ñahui, Luis M Acuña-Chávez, Fiorella Medina-Navia, Wendy Nieto-Gutierrez, Carlos Alva-Diaz, Sunati Sahoo
{"title":"Intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer treated with systemic neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.","authors":"Mariela Huerta-Rosario, Carlos Quispe-Vicuña, Dante Julca-Marín, Carlos J Zumaran-Nuñez, Hans Baltazar-Ñahui, Luis M Acuña-Chávez, Fiorella Medina-Navia, Wendy Nieto-Gutierrez, Carlos Alva-Diaz, Sunati Sahoo","doi":"10.1136/jcp-2025-210078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frozen section (FS) and touch imprint (TI) are common intraoperative evaluation (IOE) techniques for sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in breast cancer surgery. Their accuracy in patients receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) remains variable.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of FS and TI in the NST context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science was conducted through April 2024 for studies evaluating FS and/or TI in SLNs of breast cancer patients treated with NST. Meta-analysis was performed using the logit function, and Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation were employed to assess risk of bias and evidence certainty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>20 studies were included. At the lymph node level, TI demonstrated pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.54 and 1.00, respectively, while FS achieved 0.85 and 0.99. At the patient level, TI showed sensitivity and specificity of 0.72 and 1.00, while FS reached 0.82 and 0.98. Combined, FS and TI presented pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.59 and 1.00 at the patient level. Risk of bias was frequently unclear, and the certainty of evidence for both techniques ranged from low to very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FS exhibits higher sensitivity and specificity than TI at both lymph node and patient levels, but evidence certainty remains limited. Further prospective, blinded studies are needed to validate these findings and optimise IOE methods for NST-treated patients.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023483079.</p>","PeriodicalId":15391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Pathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp-2025-210078","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Frozen section (FS) and touch imprint (TI) are common intraoperative evaluation (IOE) techniques for sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in breast cancer surgery. Their accuracy in patients receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) remains variable.

Objective: To summarise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of FS and TI in the NST context.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science was conducted through April 2024 for studies evaluating FS and/or TI in SLNs of breast cancer patients treated with NST. Meta-analysis was performed using the logit function, and Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation were employed to assess risk of bias and evidence certainty.

Results: 20 studies were included. At the lymph node level, TI demonstrated pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.54 and 1.00, respectively, while FS achieved 0.85 and 0.99. At the patient level, TI showed sensitivity and specificity of 0.72 and 1.00, while FS reached 0.82 and 0.98. Combined, FS and TI presented pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.59 and 1.00 at the patient level. Risk of bias was frequently unclear, and the certainty of evidence for both techniques ranged from low to very low.

Conclusion: FS exhibits higher sensitivity and specificity than TI at both lymph node and patient levels, but evidence certainty remains limited. Further prospective, blinded studies are needed to validate these findings and optimise IOE methods for NST-treated patients.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023483079.

接受系统新辅助治疗的乳腺癌患者术中前哨淋巴结的评估:诊断研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:冷冻切片(FS)和触摸印记(TI)是乳腺癌前哨淋巴结(sln)手术中常见的术中评估(IOE)技术。在接受新辅助全身治疗(NST)的患者中,其准确性仍然存在差异。目的:总结NST背景下FS和TI诊断准确性的证据。方法:到2024年4月,系统检索PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science,以评估NST治疗乳腺癌患者sln中FS和/或TI的研究。采用logit函数进行meta分析,采用《诊断准确性研究质量评估修订工具-2》和《推荐、评估、发展和评价分级》评估偏倚风险和证据确定性。结果:纳入20项研究。在淋巴结水平,TI的敏感性和特异性分别为0.54和1.00,而FS的敏感性和特异性分别为0.85和0.99。在患者水平上,TI的敏感性和特异性分别为0.72和1.00,FS分别为0.82和0.98。FS和TI在患者水平上的敏感性和特异性分别为0.59和1.00。偏倚风险往往不明确,两种技术的证据确定性从低到非常低。结论:FS在淋巴结和患者水平上都比TI具有更高的敏感性和特异性,但证据的确定性仍然有限。需要进一步的前瞻性盲法研究来验证这些发现,并优化nst治疗患者的IOE方法。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42023483079。
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
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
113
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Pathology is a leading international journal covering all aspects of pathology. Diagnostic and research areas covered include histopathology, virology, haematology, microbiology, cytopathology, chemical pathology, molecular pathology, forensic pathology, dermatopathology, neuropathology and immunopathology. Each issue contains Reviews, Original articles, Short reports, Correspondence and more.
×
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