Guo Aiye, Wang Xiuhua, Gao Lan, Shi Juan, Sun Changyi, Wan Zhen
Department of Clinical Laboratory, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China;
Foreign Affairs Division of Scientific Research, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 May;8(5-6):E347-52. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1668.
We evaluate the diagnostic value of bladder tumour antigen (BTA stat) tests compared with urine cytology test in detecting bladder cancer.
We searched public databases including PubMed, MEDLINE Springer, Elsevier Science Direct, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar before December 2012. To collect relevant data of BTA stat tests and urine cytology tests in patients with bladder cancer, we studied meta-analyses of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) of BTA stat tests and cytology tests from published studies. We applied the software of Rev. Man 5.1 and Stata 11.0 to the meta-analysis.
A total of 13 separate studies consisting of 3462 patients with bladder cancer were considered in the meta-analysis. We found that the BTA stat test had a higher sensitivity than the urine cytology test (0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64 to 0.69 vs. 0.43, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.46), but the specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, the area under the curve (AUC) and Q index of the BTA stat test were lower compared with the urine cytology test. The results of the Egger's linear regression test showed no publication bias (p > 0.05).
Specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, the AUC and the Q index of the urine cytology test may be superior to the BTA stat test, but the BTA stat test has greater sensitivity than the urine cytology test.
我们评估了膀胱肿瘤抗原(BTA stat)检测与尿液细胞学检测在膀胱癌检测中的诊断价值。
我们在2012年12月之前检索了包括PubMed、MEDLINE、Springer、Elsevier Science Direct、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌学术在内的公共数据库。为收集膀胱癌患者中BTA stat检测和尿液细胞学检测的相关数据,我们研究了已发表研究中BTA stat检测和细胞学检测的敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比(LR)、阴性LR和诊断比值比(DOR)的荟萃分析。我们将Rev. Man 5.1和Stata 11.0软件应用于荟萃分析。
荟萃分析共纳入了13项独立研究,涉及3462例膀胱癌患者。我们发现BTA stat检测的敏感性高于尿液细胞学检测(0.67,95%置信区间[CI] 0.64至0.69 vs. 0.43,95% CI 0.40至0.46),但BTA stat检测的特异性、阳性LR、阴性LR、DOR、曲线下面积(AUC)和Q指数均低于尿液细胞学检测。Egger线性回归检验结果显示无发表偏倚(p>0.05)。
尿液细胞学检测的特异性、阳性LR、阴性LR、DOR、AUC和Q指数可能优于BTA stat检测,但BTA stat检测的敏感性高于尿液细胞学检测。