Ashutosh Rath, Immanuel Pradeep, Jitendra Singh Nigam
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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.