Suppr超能文献

细针穿刺细胞学检查与粗针穿刺活检在评估可疑乳腺病变中的敏感性和特异性比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

A sensitivity and specificity comparison of fine needle aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in evaluation of suspicious breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Wang Mei, He Xiaoning, Chang Yaping, Sun Guangwen, Thabane Lehana

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada.

School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, 92 Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin, 300072, China.

出版信息

Breast. 2017 Feb;31:157-166. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.11.009. Epub 2016 Nov 17.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Breast cancer detections for women with suspicious lesions mainly depend on two non-operative pathological tests-fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and core needle biopsy (CNB). The aim of this systematic review was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of CNB and FNAC in this setting.

METHODS

The data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) till February 2016. We included prospective series of studies which directly compared the accuracy of FNAC and CNB. We used forest plots to display the sensitivity and specificity of FNAC and CNB respectively. Pre-specified subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 12 articles (1802 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis shows that the sensitivity of CNB is better than that of FNAC [87% (95% CI, 84%-88%, I = 88.5%) versus 74% (95% CI, 72%-77%, I = 88.3%)] and the specificity of CNB is similar to that of FNAC [98% (95% CI, 96%-99%, I = 76.2%) versus 96% (95% CI, 94%-98%, I = 39.0%)]. For subgroup analysis, the sensitivities of both tests are better for palpable lesions than that of non-palpable lesions. Sensitivity analysis shows the robustness of the primary analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that both of FNAC and CNB have good clinical performance. In similar circumstances, the sensitivity of CNB is better than that of FNAC, while their specificities are similar. FNAC could be still considered the first choice to evaluate suspicious nonpalpable breast lesions.

摘要

目的

对有可疑病变的女性进行乳腺癌检测主要依赖于两种非手术病理检查——细针穿刺细胞学检查(FNAC)和粗针活检(CNB)。本系统评价的目的是比较在这种情况下CNB和FNAC的敏感性和特异性。

方法

数据来源包括截至2016年2月的MEDLINE、EMBASE、PubMed以及Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)。我们纳入了直接比较FNAC和CNB准确性的前瞻性系列研究。我们分别使用森林图展示FNAC和CNB的敏感性和特异性。进行了预先设定的亚组分析和敏感性分析。

结果

最终,12篇文章(1802例患者)纳入最终分析。汇总分析显示,CNB的敏感性优于FNAC[87%(95%CI,84%-88%,I=88.5%)对74%(95%CI,72%-77%,I=88.3%)],且CNB的特异性与FNAC相似[98%(95%CI,96%-99%,I=76.2%)对96%(95%CI,94%-98%,I=39.0%)]。对于亚组分析,两种检查对可触及病变的敏感性均优于不可触及病变。敏感性分析显示了初步分析的稳健性。

结论

我们的研究表明,FNAC和CNB均具有良好的临床性能。在类似情况下,CNB的敏感性优于FNAC,而它们的特异性相似。FNAC仍可被视为评估可疑不可触及乳腺病变的首选。

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