Minimally invasive interventions for biopsy of malignancy-suspected pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
André Miotto, João Aléssio Juliano Perfeito, Rafael Leite Pacheco, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca, Rachel Riera
{"title":"Minimally invasive interventions for biopsy of malignancy-suspected pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"André Miotto,&nbsp;João Aléssio Juliano Perfeito,&nbsp;Rafael Leite Pacheco,&nbsp;Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca,&nbsp;Rachel Riera","doi":"10.1590/1516-3180.2022.0543.R1.01022023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Imaging tests are important for diagnosis during the management of pulmonary nodules; however, biopsy is required to confirm the malignancy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effects of different techniques used for the biopsy of a pulmonary nodule.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using Cochrane methodology in São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on minimally invasive techniques, including tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy (PERCUT), transbronchial biopsies with fluoroscopy (FLUOR), endobronchial ultrasound (EBUSR), and electromagnetic navigation (NAVIG). The primary outcomes were diagnostic yield, major adverse events, and need for another approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven RCTs were included (913 participants; 39.2% female, mean age: 59.28 years). Little to no increase was observed in PERCUT over FLUOR (P = 0.84), PERCUT over EBUSR (P = 0.32), and EBUSR over NAVIG (P = 0.17), whereas a slight increase was observed in NAVIG over FLUOR (P = 0.17); however, the evidence was uncertain. EBUSR may increase the diagnostic yield over FLUOR (P = 0.34). PERCUT showed little to no increase in all bronchoscopic techniques, with uncertain evidence (P = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No biopsy method is definitively superior to others. The preferred approach must consider availability, accessibility, and cost, as safety and diagnostic yield do not differ. Further RCTs planned, conducted, and reported with methodological rigor and transparency are needed, and additional studies should assess cost and the correlation between nodule size and location, as well as their association with biopsy results.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO database, CRD42018092367 -https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=92367.</p>","PeriodicalId":49574,"journal":{"name":"Sao Paulo Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10109545/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sao Paulo Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2022.0543.R1.01022023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Imaging tests are important for diagnosis during the management of pulmonary nodules; however, biopsy is required to confirm the malignancy.

Objectives: To compare the effects of different techniques used for the biopsy of a pulmonary nodule.

Design and setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using Cochrane methodology in São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on minimally invasive techniques, including tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy (PERCUT), transbronchial biopsies with fluoroscopy (FLUOR), endobronchial ultrasound (EBUSR), and electromagnetic navigation (NAVIG). The primary outcomes were diagnostic yield, major adverse events, and need for another approach.

Results: Seven RCTs were included (913 participants; 39.2% female, mean age: 59.28 years). Little to no increase was observed in PERCUT over FLUOR (P = 0.84), PERCUT over EBUSR (P = 0.32), and EBUSR over NAVIG (P = 0.17), whereas a slight increase was observed in NAVIG over FLUOR (P = 0.17); however, the evidence was uncertain. EBUSR may increase the diagnostic yield over FLUOR (P = 0.34). PERCUT showed little to no increase in all bronchoscopic techniques, with uncertain evidence (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: No biopsy method is definitively superior to others. The preferred approach must consider availability, accessibility, and cost, as safety and diagnostic yield do not differ. Further RCTs planned, conducted, and reported with methodological rigor and transparency are needed, and additional studies should assess cost and the correlation between nodule size and location, as well as their association with biopsy results.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO database, CRD42018092367 -https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=92367.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

疑似恶性肺结节活检的微创干预:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:影像学检查对肺结节的诊断具有重要意义;然而,需要活检来确认恶性肿瘤。目的:比较不同技术对肺结节活检的效果。设计和环境:采用Cochrane方法在巴西圣保罗圣保罗进行系统评价和荟萃分析。方法:我们对微创技术的随机对照试验(rct)进行了系统回顾,包括断层扫描引导下的经皮活检(PERCUT)、经支气管透视活检(FLUOR)、支气管超声(EBUSR)和电磁导航(NAVIG)。主要结局是诊断率、主要不良事件和是否需要另一种方法。结果:纳入7项随机对照试验(913名受试者;女性39.2%,平均年龄59.28岁)。PERCUT优于FLUOR (P = 0.84), PERCUT优于EBUSR (P = 0.32), EBUSR优于NAVIG (P = 0.17),而NAVIG优于FLUOR略有增加(P = 0.17);然而,证据并不确定。EBUSR比FLUOR可提高诊断率(P = 0.34)。PERCUT在所有支气管镜检查中几乎没有增加,证据不确定(P = 0.02)。结论:没有一种活检方法绝对优于其他方法。首选方法必须考虑可用性、可及性和成本,因为安全性和诊断率没有差异。进一步的随机对照试验计划、实施和报告需要严谨和透明的方法,额外的研究应该评估成本、结节大小和位置之间的相关性,以及它们与活检结果的关系。系统评价注册:PROSPERO数据库,CRD42018092367 -https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=92367。
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
Sao Paulo Medical Journal
Sao Paulo Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
210
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Published bimonthly by the Associação Paulista de Medicina, the journal accepts articles in the fields of clinical health science (internal medicine, gynecology and obstetrics, mental health, surgery, pediatrics and public health). Articles will be accepted in the form of original articles (clinical trials, cohort, case-control, prevalence, incidence, accuracy and cost-effectiveness studies and systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis), narrative reviews of the literature, case reports, short communications and letters to the editor. Papers with a commercial objective will not be accepted.
×
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