Liang Sharron, Cozzolino Immacolata, Zeppa Pio, Field Andrew S
Department of Anatomical Pathology, St. Vincent's Hospital and University of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Medical School, University of NSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Cancer Cytopathol. 2024 Dec;132(12):745-756. doi: 10.1002/cncy.22890. Epub 2024 Aug 4.
The Sydney system for fine-needle aspiration biopsy of lymph nodes has five categories, stressing the role of correlation of cytopathology with clinical, ultrasound, and ancillary findings to achieve diagnosis. The five categories constitute a hierarchical system with increasing risk of malignancy from benign to atypical, suspicious, and malignant categories, which informs recommendations for further workup to achieve a final diagnosis as possible. This article analyzes 10 publications using the Sydney system and a meta-analysis of nine of these studies. The primary goal of the analysis is to ascertain the causes of the large ranges in risk of malignancy for the "atypical" and "inadequate" compared to "benign," "suspicious," and "malignant" categories, which were comparable to well-established reporting systems. Research protocols are proposed to improve future studies.
PubMed literature search from January 2021 to December 2023 identified studies evaluating performance of the Sydney system.
Ten studies showed heterogeneity with clinical setting, study design, ultrasound use and rapid on-site evaluation, operator, cutoff points for "positive" cases, with inherent partial verification biases, resulting in a wide range of risk of malignancy, specificity, and sensitivity values.
Analysis shows the large range is due to heterogeneity of the studies, which suffer from biases and variable statistical analysis that are ultimately included in any meta-analysis, detracting from the usefulness of the risk of malignancy derived by the meta-analysis. Components for ideal analyses of reporting systems are presented.
悉尼淋巴结细针穿刺活检系统有五个类别,强调细胞病理学与临床、超声及辅助检查结果相结合以实现诊断的作用。这五个类别构成一个分级系统,从良性到非典型、可疑和恶性类别,恶性风险逐渐增加,为进一步检查以尽可能达成最终诊断提供了建议。本文分析了10篇使用悉尼系统的出版物,并对其中9项研究进行了荟萃分析。分析的主要目标是确定与“良性”“可疑”和“恶性”类别相比,“非典型”和“不充分”类别中恶性风险范围差异较大的原因,这些类别与成熟的报告系统相当。提出了研究方案以改进未来的研究。
通过2021年1月至2023年12月在PubMed上进行文献检索,确定评估悉尼系统性能的研究。
10项研究在临床环境、研究设计、超声使用和快速现场评估、操作人员、“阳性”病例的截断点等方面存在异质性,存在固有的部分验证偏倚,导致恶性风险、特异性和敏感性值的范围广泛。
分析表明,范围差异大是由于研究的异质性,这些研究存在偏倚和可变的统计分析,最终会纳入任何荟萃分析中,从而降低了荟萃分析得出的恶性风险的有用性。本文还介绍了报告系统理想分析的组成部分。