Diagnostic Performance of Bile Duct Brush Cytology with Risk of Malignancy of Standardized Categories in the Wake of World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 PATHOLOGY
Acta Cytologica Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-25 DOI:10.1159/000534764
Ashutosh Rath, Immanuel Pradeep, Jitendra Singh Nigam
{"title":"Diagnostic Performance of Bile Duct Brush Cytology with Risk of Malignancy of Standardized Categories in the Wake of World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Ashutosh Rath, Immanuel Pradeep, Jitendra Singh Nigam","doi":"10.1159/000534764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The WHO Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology revised the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines in alignment with the WHO classification of digestive system tumors, 5th edition. The current systematic review and meta-analysis have been conducted to accurately assess the performance of bile duct brush cytology and report the risk of malignancy (ROM) of each standard category by following the guidelines of diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medline/Pubmed and Cochrane databases were searched till June 8, 2023, with a strategy that included target site (pancreaticobiliary and related terms), diagnostic method (bile duct brushing and related terms), and keywords for diagnostic performance (for Cochrane database). Inclusion criteria included studies that have assessed bile duct cytology (BDC) for pancreaticobiliary duct stricture with a sample size of over 50, provided cytological diagnoses similar to the WHO system with details to deduce true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives through subsequent final diagnoses (benign vs. malignant). The exclusion criteria were the fewer sample size, assessment through other cytological categories, limited data, and clinical setting. Two authors independently reviewed the result of the search strategy. The quality of the selected articles was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects model was used to get the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using I-squared statistics, and potential sources were found using meta-regression. Pooled and a range of ROM in each category was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies were included with 4,398 bile duct brushings. The pooled sensitivity is 0.437 (95% CI: 0.371-0.504), and the pooled specificity is 0.972 (95% CI: 0.943-0.987). The ROM in various categories are as follows: inadequate/nondiagnostic: 23-100% (pooled: 50.15%), benign/negative for malignancy: 22-70% (38%), atypical: 0-95% (66%), suspicious for malignancy: 74-100% (89%), malignant: 91-100% (98%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Even with standard cytological categories, the sensitivity of BDC remains low. The review has analyzed and discussed potential causes of heterogeneity that will be helpful for future diagnostic studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":6959,"journal":{"name":"Acta Cytologica","volume":" ","pages":"639-649"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Cytologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534764","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The WHO Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology revised the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines in alignment with the WHO classification of digestive system tumors, 5th edition. The current systematic review and meta-analysis have been conducted to accurately assess the performance of bile duct brush cytology and report the risk of malignancy (ROM) of each standard category by following the guidelines of diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Methods: Medline/Pubmed and Cochrane databases were searched till June 8, 2023, with a strategy that included target site (pancreaticobiliary and related terms), diagnostic method (bile duct brushing and related terms), and keywords for diagnostic performance (for Cochrane database). Inclusion criteria included studies that have assessed bile duct cytology (BDC) for pancreaticobiliary duct stricture with a sample size of over 50, provided cytological diagnoses similar to the WHO system with details to deduce true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives through subsequent final diagnoses (benign vs. malignant). The exclusion criteria were the fewer sample size, assessment through other cytological categories, limited data, and clinical setting. Two authors independently reviewed the result of the search strategy. The quality of the selected articles was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects model was used to get the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using I-squared statistics, and potential sources were found using meta-regression. Pooled and a range of ROM in each category was analyzed.

Results: Thirteen studies were included with 4,398 bile duct brushings. The pooled sensitivity is 0.437 (95% CI: 0.371-0.504), and the pooled specificity is 0.972 (95% CI: 0.943-0.987). The ROM in various categories are as follows: inadequate/nondiagnostic: 23-100% (pooled: 50.15%), benign/negative for malignancy: 22-70% (38%), atypical: 0-95% (66%), suspicious for malignancy: 74-100% (89%), malignant: 91-100% (98%).

Conclusion: Even with standard cytological categories, the sensitivity of BDC remains low. The review has analyzed and discussed potential causes of heterogeneity that will be helpful for future diagnostic studies.

根据世界卫生组织胰胆管细胞病理学报告系统,胆管刷状细胞学对标准化类别恶性肿瘤风险的诊断表现:一项最新的系统综述和荟萃分析。
简介:世界卫生组织胰腺胆细胞病理学报告系统根据世界卫生组织消化系统肿瘤分类第5版修订了Papanicolaou细胞病理学学会指南。目前已经进行了系统综述和荟萃分析,以通过遵循诊断测试准确性荟萃分析指南,准确评估胆管刷细胞学的性能,并报告每个标准类别的恶性肿瘤(ROM)风险。方法:检索Medline/Pubmed和Cochrane数据库至2023年6月8日,策略包括靶位点(胰胆管及相关术语)、诊断方法(胆管刷涂及相关术语,以及诊断性能关键词(用于Cochrane数据库)。纳入标准包括评估胰胆管狭窄胆管细胞学(BDC)的研究,样本量超过50,提供了类似于世界卫生组织系统的细胞学诊断,并通过随后的最终诊断推断出真阳性、真阴性、假阳性和假阴性(良性与恶性)。排除标准是样本量较少、通过其他细胞学类别进行评估、数据有限和临床环境。两位作者独立审查了搜索策略的结果。所选文章的质量通过QUADAS-2工具进行评估。使用双变量随机效应模型来获得合并的敏感性和特异性。使用I平方统计量评估研究之间的异质性,并使用元回归找到潜在来源。对每个类别的汇总和ROM范围进行了分析。结果:13项研究包括4398次胆管冲洗。合并敏感性为0.437(95%CI:0.371-0.504),合并特异性为0.972(95%CI:0.943-0.987)。不同类别的ROM如下:不充分/非诊断性:23%-100%(合并-50.15%),良性/阴性恶性:22%-70%(38%),非典型:0%-95%(66%),可疑恶性:74%-100%(89%),恶性:91%至100%(98%)。结论:即使采用标准的细胞学分类,BDC的敏感性仍然很低。这篇综述分析并讨论了异质性的潜在原因,这将有助于未来的诊断研究。
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
Acta Cytologica
Acta Cytologica 生物-病理学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: With articles offering an excellent balance between clinical cytology and cytopathology, ''Acta Cytologica'' fosters the understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms behind cytomorphology and thus facilitates the translation of frontline research into clinical practice. As the official journal of the International Academy of Cytology and affiliated to over 50 national cytology societies around the world, ''Acta Cytologica'' evaluates new and existing diagnostic applications of scientific advances as well as their clinical correlations. Original papers, review articles, meta-analyses, novel insights from clinical practice, and letters to the editor cover topics from diagnostic cytopathology, gynecologic and non-gynecologic cytopathology to fine needle aspiration, molecular techniques and their diagnostic applications. As the perfect reference for practical use, ''Acta Cytologica'' addresses a multidisciplinary audience practicing clinical cytopathology, cell biology, oncology, interventional radiology, otorhinolaryngology, gastroenterology, urology, pulmonology and preventive medicine.
×
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