Is immunohistochemistry more sensitive than hematoxylin-eosin staining for identifying perineural or lymphovascular invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

A. Alves, Dayrine Silveira de Paula, Lia Vila Real Lima, T. Dantas, M. Mota, F. Sousa, Paulo Goberlânio Barros Silva
{"title":"Is immunohistochemistry more sensitive than hematoxylin-eosin staining for identifying perineural or lymphovascular invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"A. Alves, Dayrine Silveira de Paula, Lia Vila Real Lima, T. Dantas, M. Mota, F. Sousa, Paulo Goberlânio Barros Silva","doi":"10.4317/medoral.25114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background This study aimed to analyze whether immunohistochemistry (IHC) is more sensitive than hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining for identifying perineural invasion (PNI) or lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Material and Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews – CRD 42021256515), data were obtained from six databases (PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, EBSCO, LIVIVO, Embase) and the grey literature. Cross-sectional observational studies of the diagnostic sensitivity of IHC for PNI and LVI were included. Studies were selected in two phases: first collection and reference retrieval. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool assessed study quality, while the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach assessed evidence quality. The meta-analysis (random effects model) was performed using MedCalc 18.2.1 software (MedCalc®) (p<0.05). Results Four studies (560 patients with 295 biopsies) were analyzed. The combined sensitivity was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.30–97.19%) and specificity was 42% (95% CI, 23.40–62.02%). The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 61% (95% CI, 49.78–71.53%) and 70% (95% CI, 37.63–94.43%). The overall accuracy was 58% (95% CI, 45.17–70.65%). The risk of bias was low, and GRADE analysis showed a very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions Our data suggest that IHC staining to highlight PNI/LVI may be useful in cases in which H&E analysis results in a negative decrease in the prevalence of false-negative cases and underestimated treatment. Key words:Mouth neoplasms, neoplasm invasiveness, blood vessels, peripheral nerves.","PeriodicalId":18367,"journal":{"name":"Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal","volume":"62 1","pages":"e238 - e247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.25114","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 This study aimed to analyze whether immunohistochemistry (IHC) is more sensitive than hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining for identifying perineural invasion (PNI) or lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Material and Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews – CRD 42021256515), data were obtained from six databases (PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, EBSCO, LIVIVO, Embase) and the grey literature. Cross-sectional observational studies of the diagnostic sensitivity of IHC for PNI and LVI were included. Studies were selected in two phases: first collection and reference retrieval. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool assessed study quality, while the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach assessed evidence quality. The meta-analysis (random effects model) was performed using MedCalc 18.2.1 software (MedCalc®) (p<0.05). Results Four studies (560 patients with 295 biopsies) were analyzed. The combined sensitivity was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.30–97.19%) and specificity was 42% (95% CI, 23.40–62.02%). The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 61% (95% CI, 49.78–71.53%) and 70% (95% CI, 37.63–94.43%). The overall accuracy was 58% (95% CI, 45.17–70.65%). The risk of bias was low, and GRADE analysis showed a very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions Our data suggest that IHC staining to highlight PNI/LVI may be useful in cases in which H&E analysis results in a negative decrease in the prevalence of false-negative cases and underestimated treatment. Key words:Mouth neoplasms, neoplasm invasiveness, blood vessels, peripheral nerves.
免疫组织化学是否比苏木精-伊红染色在鉴别口腔鳞状细胞癌的神经周围或淋巴血管浸润方面更敏感?系统回顾和荟萃分析
本研究旨在分析免疫组织化学(IHC)是否比苏木精-伊红(H&E)染色更敏感地识别口腔鳞状细胞癌(OSCC)的神经周围浸润(PNI)或淋巴血管浸润(LVI)。在这项系统评价和荟萃分析(Prospective Register of systematic Reviews - CRD 42021256515)中,数据来自六个数据库(PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, EBSCO, LIVIVO, Embase)和灰色文献。纳入了IHC对PNI和LVI诊断敏感性的横断面观察研究。研究选择分为两个阶段:第一阶段收集和参考文献检索。诊断准确性研究的质量评估-2工具评估了研究质量,而建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)方法评估了证据质量。meta分析(随机效应模型)采用MedCalc 18.2.1软件(MedCalc®)进行(p<0.05)。结果分析了4项研究(560例患者,295例活检)。联合敏感性为76%(95%可信区间[CI], 44.30 ~ 97.19%),特异性为42% (95% CI, 23.40 ~ 62.02%)。阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)分别为61% (95% CI, 49.78 ~ 71.53%)和70% (95% CI, 37.63 ~ 94.43%)。总体准确率为58% (95% CI, 45.17-70.65%)。偏倚风险较低,GRADE分析显示证据的确定性非常低。我们的数据表明,在H&E分析导致假阴性病例发生率下降和低估治疗的情况下,IHC染色突出PNI/LVI可能是有用的。关键词:口腔肿瘤,肿瘤侵袭性,血管,周围神经
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