Ryan K W Chee, Reshma M Koshy, Jordan Haidey, Mohammad H Murad, Gavin Low, Mitchell P Wilson
{"title":"重新评估无症状绝经后患者的子宫内膜厚度以排除癌症:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ryan K W Chee, Reshma M Koshy, Jordan Haidey, Mohammad H Murad, Gavin Low, Mitchell P Wilson","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.11.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The current ACR and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines recommend a ≤4-mm endometrial thickness threshold for excluding endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to re-evaluate the optimal endometrial thickness threshold on imaging for excluding cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to October 2023 was performed in addition to a gray literature search. Studies were included if they evaluated the diagnostic imaging accuracy of endometrial thickness thresholds for detecting endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients. The reference standard was histopathology. Full-text review and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five studies with 6,302 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age range was 51 to 68 years. The sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals for the 2- to 7-mm thresholds are 95% (84%-98%) and 22% (8%-49%) for ≤2 mm, 94% (82%-98%) and 35% (24%-47%) for ≤3 mm, 95% (86%-98%) and 45% (34%-56%) for ≤4 mm, 88% (75%-95%) and 56% (42%-68%) for ≤5 mm, 84% (63%-94%) and 60% (43%-74%) for ≤6 mm, and 85% (56%-96%) and 62% (49%-73%) for ≤7 mm. Studies were deemed predominantly low risk for bias across domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This comprehensive meta-analysis supports the ≤4-mm endometrial thickness threshold for excluding endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":73968,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-evaluating Endometrial Thickness in Symptomatic Postmenopausal Patients for Excluding Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan K W Chee, Reshma M Koshy, Jordan Haidey, Mohammad H Murad, Gavin Low, Mitchell P Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.11.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The current ACR and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines recommend a ≤4-mm endometrial thickness threshold for excluding endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to re-evaluate the optimal endometrial thickness threshold on imaging for excluding cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to October 2023 was performed in addition to a gray literature search. Studies were included if they evaluated the diagnostic imaging accuracy of endometrial thickness thresholds for detecting endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients. The reference standard was histopathology. Full-text review and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five studies with 6,302 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age range was 51 to 68 years. The sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals for the 2- to 7-mm thresholds are 95% (84%-98%) and 22% (8%-49%) for ≤2 mm, 94% (82%-98%) and 35% (24%-47%) for ≤3 mm, 95% (86%-98%) and 45% (34%-56%) for ≤4 mm, 88% (75%-95%) and 56% (42%-68%) for ≤5 mm, 84% (63%-94%) and 60% (43%-74%) for ≤6 mm, and 85% (56%-96%) and 62% (49%-73%) for ≤7 mm. Studies were deemed predominantly low risk for bias across domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This comprehensive meta-analysis supports the ≤4-mm endometrial thickness threshold for excluding endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73968,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2024.11.008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2024.11.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Re-evaluating Endometrial Thickness in Symptomatic Postmenopausal Patients for Excluding Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Purpose: The current ACR and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines recommend a ≤4-mm endometrial thickness threshold for excluding endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to re-evaluate the optimal endometrial thickness threshold on imaging for excluding cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients.
Materials and methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to October 2023 was performed in addition to a gray literature search. Studies were included if they evaluated the diagnostic imaging accuracy of endometrial thickness thresholds for detecting endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients. The reference standard was histopathology. Full-text review and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model.
Results: Thirty-five studies with 6,302 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age range was 51 to 68 years. The sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals for the 2- to 7-mm thresholds are 95% (84%-98%) and 22% (8%-49%) for ≤2 mm, 94% (82%-98%) and 35% (24%-47%) for ≤3 mm, 95% (86%-98%) and 45% (34%-56%) for ≤4 mm, 88% (75%-95%) and 56% (42%-68%) for ≤5 mm, 84% (63%-94%) and 60% (43%-74%) for ≤6 mm, and 85% (56%-96%) and 62% (49%-73%) for ≤7 mm. Studies were deemed predominantly low risk for bias across domains.
Conclusion: This comprehensive meta-analysis supports the ≤4-mm endometrial thickness threshold for excluding endometrial cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal patients.