Suppr超能文献

两种微创乳腺活检方法准确性的比较:系统文献综述与荟萃分析

A comparison of the accuracy of two minimally invasive breast biopsy methods: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Fahrbach Kyle, Sledge Isabella, Cella Catherine, Linz Heather, Ross Susan D

机构信息

MetaWorks, Inc., 10 President's Landing, Boston, MA 02155, USA.

出版信息

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006 May;274(2):63-73. doi: 10.1007/s00404-005-0106-y. Epub 2006 Apr 6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to quantify and compare the accuracy and failure rates of directional vacuum assisted biopsy (DVAB) and core needle biopsy (CNB) when used under stereotactic (ST) guidance to biopsy suspicious breast lesions identified with screening mammography.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature published from January 1996 to July 2004, reporting all-comers populations in Western-style health care systems (i.e., North America, Europe, Australia or New Zealand), referred after screening mammography for breast biopsy using DVAB or CNB under ST guidance. Meta-analyses were conducted for DVAB and CNB, using open surgical biopsy and/or long-term clinical and/or mammogram follow-up as the diagnostic reference standard. The main outcomes of interest were those of greatest clinical relevance, i.e., miss rates and underestimation rates for malignancy. Also, technical failure rate and non-diagnostic rate were assessed for each biopsy method.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies qualified for the review. There were 12 studies with a DVAB group (n=5,119 patients), and 25 studies with a CNB group (n=6,236). There were no studies including both a DVAB and a CNB group, thus precluding any direct, within-study comparisons of accuracy. Overall agreement rate between DVAB and the reference standard was 97.3%, and between CNB and the reference standard, 93.5%. The frequency of technical failures with CNB was slightly higher than DVAB (5.7 vs. 1.5%), as was the frequency of non-diagnostic samples (2.1 vs. 0%). Of the non-diagnostic CNB samples, 23% were subsequently found to be malignant on reference standard. In multivariate analyses using four covariates (procedure type, geographic location, reference standard, and patient position), there were no significant predictors of agreement rates, but some variables were significant predictors of miss rates. For benign to malignant upgrades, study location was a significant predictor, with more upgrades in non-NA locations. For atypia to malignant upgrades, the type of procedure was a significant predictor, with more underestimations in CNB studies.

CONCLUSION

The best available evidence suggests that, in screening populations referred for minimally invasive breast biopsy biopsy requiring ST guidance, DVAB may provide lower miss and underestimation rates for clinically relevant diagnoses than does CNB.

摘要

目的

主要目的是量化并比较在立体定位(ST)引导下,定向真空辅助活检(DVAB)和粗针活检(CNB)用于对乳腺钼靶筛查中发现的可疑乳腺病变进行活检时的准确性和失败率。

方法

我们对1996年1月至2004年7月发表的文献进行了系统回顾,报告了西方医疗保健系统(即北美、欧洲、澳大利亚或新西兰)中所有前来就诊的人群,这些人群在乳腺钼靶筛查后被转诊,在ST引导下使用DVAB或CNB进行乳腺活检。对DVAB和CNB进行荟萃分析,将开放手术活检和/或长期临床及/或钼靶随访作为诊断参考标准。主要关注的结果是具有最大临床相关性的结果,即恶性肿瘤的漏诊率和低估率。此外,还评估了每种活检方法的技术失败率和非诊断率。

结果

35项研究符合纳入标准。有12项研究包含DVAB组(n = 5119例患者),25项研究包含CNB组(n = 6236例)。没有研究同时包含DVAB组和CNB组,因此无法进行任何直接的、研究内的准确性比较。DVAB与参考标准之间的总体一致率为97.3%,CNB与参考标准之间为93.5%。CNB的技术失败频率略高于DVAB(5.7%对1.5%),非诊断样本的频率也是如此(2.1%对0%)。在非诊断性CNB样本中,23%随后在参考标准下被发现为恶性。在使用四个协变量(手术类型、地理位置、参考标准和患者体位)的多变量分析中,没有显著的一致率预测因素,但一些变量是漏诊率的显著预测因素。对于良性到恶性的升级,研究地点是一个显著的预测因素,在非北美地区升级更多。对于非典型增生到恶性的升级,手术类型是一个显著的预测因素,在CNB研究中低估更多。

结论

现有最佳证据表明,在需要ST引导的微创乳腺活检的筛查人群中,与CNB相比,DVAB在临床相关诊断中可能提供更低的漏诊率和低估率。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验