超声内镜引导下组织采集腹部肿块后,液体细胞学和常规涂片联合检查提供了更好的灵敏度和充分率:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Marie Anne Engh, Brigitta Teutsch, Alexander Schulze Wenning, Tamás Kói, Péter Hegyi, Bálint Erőss
{"title":"超声内镜引导下组织采集腹部肿块后,液体细胞学和常规涂片联合检查提供了更好的灵敏度和充分率:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Marie Anne Engh, Brigitta Teutsch, Alexander Schulze Wenning, Tamás Kói, Péter Hegyi, Bálint Erőss","doi":"10.3390/jcm14186685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and Aims:</b> Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) is the standard method for diagnosing abdominal masses, but sample inadequacy and diagnostic accuracy remain challenges. Conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) are standard processing methods, yet their comparative effectiveness and potential combined benefit remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance and adequacy of CS, LBC, and their combination. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL on 17 November 2024. Studies comparing CS, LBC, or their combination following EUS-FNA/FNB for abdominal masses were included. Diagnostic parameters, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inadequacy rates, were extracted and analyzed. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. <b>Results</b>: 16 studies (2128 patients) were included. Sensitivity for pancreatic masses was 71.4% (CI: 62.9-78.7) for CS, 74.7% (CI: 64.3-82.8) for LBC, and 86.2% (CI: 82.4-89.3) for combined methods (<i>p</i> = 0.001). For all abdominal masses, sensitivity was 76.3% (CI: 67.9-83.0) for CS, 73.6% (CI: 65.6-80.2) for LBC, and 88.0% (CI: 84.0-91.2) for combined methods (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.006). Specificity was nearly 100%. Inadequacy rates were lowest for combined methods (1.5%, CI: 0-36.2), when compared to LBC (7.7%, CI: 2.7-20.4) and CS (4.4%, CI: 2.4-7.9). Moderate bias risk was noted, primarily due to incorporation bias. Domain 3 (reference standard) of QUADAS was uniformly moderate-risk across studies. <b>Conclusions</b>: Combining CS and LBC methods improves diagnostic sensitivity and reduces sample inadequacy after EUS-guided tissue acquisition for abdominal masses, particularly pancreatic lesions. Clinical guidelines should consider recommending the combined approach to enhance diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12471235/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Combined Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Provides Better Sensitivity and Adequacy Rates After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Abdominal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Marie Anne Engh, Brigitta Teutsch, Alexander Schulze Wenning, Tamás Kói, Péter Hegyi, Bálint Erőss\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jcm14186685\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background and Aims:</b> Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) is the standard method for diagnosing abdominal masses, but sample inadequacy and diagnostic accuracy remain challenges. Conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) are standard processing methods, yet their comparative effectiveness and potential combined benefit remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance and adequacy of CS, LBC, and their combination. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL on 17 November 2024. Studies comparing CS, LBC, or their combination following EUS-FNA/FNB for abdominal masses were included. Diagnostic parameters, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inadequacy rates, were extracted and analyzed. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. <b>Results</b>: 16 studies (2128 patients) were included. Sensitivity for pancreatic masses was 71.4% (CI: 62.9-78.7) for CS, 74.7% (CI: 64.3-82.8) for LBC, and 86.2% (CI: 82.4-89.3) for combined methods (<i>p</i> = 0.001). For all abdominal masses, sensitivity was 76.3% (CI: 67.9-83.0) for CS, 73.6% (CI: 65.6-80.2) for LBC, and 88.0% (CI: 84.0-91.2) for combined methods (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.006). Specificity was nearly 100%. Inadequacy rates were lowest for combined methods (1.5%, CI: 0-36.2), when compared to LBC (7.7%, CI: 2.7-20.4) and CS (4.4%, CI: 2.4-7.9). Moderate bias risk was noted, primarily due to incorporation bias. Domain 3 (reference standard) of QUADAS was uniformly moderate-risk across studies. <b>Conclusions</b>: Combining CS and LBC methods improves diagnostic sensitivity and reduces sample inadequacy after EUS-guided tissue acquisition for abdominal masses, particularly pancreatic lesions. Clinical guidelines should consider recommending the combined approach to enhance diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Medicine\",\"volume\":\"14 18\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12471235/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186685\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186685","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:超声内镜(EUS)引导下的细针穿刺(FNA)或活检(FNB)是诊断腹部肿块的标准方法,但样本不足和诊断准确性仍然是挑战。常规涂片(CS)和液体细胞学(LBC)是标准的处理方法,但它们的比较有效性和潜在的综合效益尚不清楚。我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估和比较CS、LBC及其组合的诊断性能和充分性。方法:于2024年11月17日在Medline、Embase和CENTRAL进行系统检索。比较CS、LBC或EUS-FNA/FNB对腹部肿块的联合治疗的研究被纳入。提取并分析诊断参数,包括敏感性、特异性、准确性和不充分率。采用QUADAS-2评估方法学质量。结果:纳入16项研究(2128例患者)。CS对胰腺肿块的敏感性为71.4% (CI: 62.9-78.7), LBC为74.7% (CI: 64.3-82.8),联合方法为86.2% (CI: 82.4-89.3) (p = 0.001)。对于所有腹部肿块,CS的敏感性为76.3% (CI: 67.9-83.0), LBC的敏感性为73.6% (CI: 65.6-80.2),联合方法的敏感性为88.0% (CI: 84.0-91.2) (p≤0.006)。特异性接近100%。与LBC (7.7%, CI: 2.7-20.4)和CS (4.4%, CI: 2.4-7.9)相比,联合方法的不充分率最低(1.5%,CI: 0-36.2)。注意到中度偏倚风险,主要是由于纳入偏倚。区域3(参考标准)在所有研究中均为中度风险。结论:结合CS和LBC方法提高了诊断敏感性,减少了eus引导下对腹部肿块,特别是胰腺病变进行组织采集后样本不足的情况。临床指南应考虑推荐联合方法,以提高诊断率和临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Combined Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Provides Better Sensitivity and Adequacy Rates After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Abdominal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Combined Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Provides Better Sensitivity and Adequacy Rates After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Abdominal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Combined Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Provides Better Sensitivity and Adequacy Rates After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Abdominal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Combined Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Provides Better Sensitivity and Adequacy Rates After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Abdominal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) is the standard method for diagnosing abdominal masses, but sample inadequacy and diagnostic accuracy remain challenges. Conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) are standard processing methods, yet their comparative effectiveness and potential combined benefit remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance and adequacy of CS, LBC, and their combination. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL on 17 November 2024. Studies comparing CS, LBC, or their combination following EUS-FNA/FNB for abdominal masses were included. Diagnostic parameters, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inadequacy rates, were extracted and analyzed. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: 16 studies (2128 patients) were included. Sensitivity for pancreatic masses was 71.4% (CI: 62.9-78.7) for CS, 74.7% (CI: 64.3-82.8) for LBC, and 86.2% (CI: 82.4-89.3) for combined methods (p = 0.001). For all abdominal masses, sensitivity was 76.3% (CI: 67.9-83.0) for CS, 73.6% (CI: 65.6-80.2) for LBC, and 88.0% (CI: 84.0-91.2) for combined methods (p ≤ 0.006). Specificity was nearly 100%. Inadequacy rates were lowest for combined methods (1.5%, CI: 0-36.2), when compared to LBC (7.7%, CI: 2.7-20.4) and CS (4.4%, CI: 2.4-7.9). Moderate bias risk was noted, primarily due to incorporation bias. Domain 3 (reference standard) of QUADAS was uniformly moderate-risk across studies. Conclusions: Combining CS and LBC methods improves diagnostic sensitivity and reduces sample inadequacy after EUS-guided tissue acquisition for abdominal masses, particularly pancreatic lesions. Clinical guidelines should consider recommending the combined approach to enhance diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
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