Kang Yun Jin, Lee Hyeon Woo, Stybayeva Gulnaz, Hwang Se Hwan
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Cheonan 14584, Republic of Korea.
Department of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Feb 11;16(4):751. doi: 10.3390/cancers16040751.
To compare conventional smears (CSs) and liquid-based preparations (LBPs) for diagnosing thyroid malignant or suspicious lesions.
Studies in the PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database published up to December 2023. We reviewed 17 studies, including 15,861 samples.
The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for CS was 23.6674. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.879, with sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 0.8266, 0.8668, 0.8969, and 0.7841, respectively. The rate of inadequate specimens was 0.1280. For LBP, the DOR was 25.3587, with an AUC of 0.865. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 0.8190, 0.8833, 0.8515, and 0.8562. The rate of inadequate specimens was 0.1729. For CS plus LBP, the AUC was 0.813, with a lower DOR of 9.4557 compared to individual methods. Diagnostic accuracy did not significantly differ among CS, LBP, and CS plus LBP. Subgroup analysis was used to compare ThinPrep and SurePath. The DORs were 29.1494 and 19.7734. SurePath had a significantly higher AUC.
There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy or proportion of inadequate smears between CS and LBP. SurePath demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than ThinPrep. Recommendations for fine-needle aspiration cytology should consider cost, feasibility, and accuracy.
比较传统涂片（CSs）和液基制片（LBPs）在诊断甲状腺恶性或可疑病变方面的效果。
检索截至2023年12月在PubMed、SCOPUS、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库中发表的研究。我们回顾了17项研究，包括15861个样本。
CS的诊断比值比（DOR）为23.6674。汇总受试者工作特征曲线（AUC）下的面积为0.879，敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值和阳性预测值分别为0.8266、0.8668、0.8969和0.7841。标本不合格率为0.1280。对于LBP，DOR为25.3587，AUC为0.865。敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值和阳性预测值分别为0.8190、0.8833、0.8515和0.8562。标本不合格率为0.1729。对于CS加LBP，AUC为0.813，与单独方法相比，DOR较低，为9.4557。CS、LBP和CS加LBP之间的诊断准确性没有显著差异。采用亚组分析比较ThinPrep和SurePath。DOR分别为29.1494和19.7734。SurePath的AUC显著更高。
CS和LBP在诊断准确性或涂片不合格比例方面没有显著差异。SurePath的诊断准确性高于ThinPrep。细针穿刺细胞学检查的建议应考虑成本、可行性和准确性。
