Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Biopsy for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pelvic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Biopsy for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pelvic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
复制标题
超声内镜引导活检鉴别良性和恶性盆腔病变：系统评价和荟萃分析
DOI：
10.1007/s10620-015-3831-5
复制
发表时间：
2015-12-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Ding, Zhen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Han, Chaoqun;Lin, Rong;Ding, Zhen
背景尽管影像学技术不断进步，但盆腔病变的术前诊断仍具有挑战性。超声内镜（EUS）引导活检是一种有效的诊断模式，用于消化道和周围区域的采样。然而，荟萃分析总结EUS引导下活检盆腔病变的诊断疗效尚未published.AimsWe旨在评估EUS引导下活检在盆腔病变诊断中的实用性。MethodsArticles通过结构化数据库搜索确定;只有研究盆腔病变证实手术或临床随访被纳入。根据严格的标准选择提取的数据。使用固定效应模型估计灵敏度、特异性、阳性似然比（PLR）、阴性似然比（NLR）和诊断比值比（DOR）。一个总结接受者工作特征曲线（SROC）也constructed.ResultsTen研究，共包含246例患者。EUS引导下活检鉴别诊断盆腔肿块的合并敏感性为0.89（95%CI 0.83-0.94），特异性为0.93（95%CI 0.86-0.97）。SROC下的面积为0.9631。合并PLR、NLR和DOR分别为11.75（95% CI 5.90-23.43）、0.12（95% CI 0.07-0.20）和100.06（95% CI 37.48-267.10）。有潜在的存在出版物的偏见，在此荟萃analys.ConclusionsOur荟萃分析表明，EUS引导下活检是一个强大的工具，用于区分盆腔肿块具有较高的敏感性和特异性。此外，它是一种安全的手术，并发症发生率低，但需要进行更多高质量的前瞻性研究。
BackgroundPreoperative diagnosis of pelvic lesions remains challenging despite advances in imaging technologies. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biopsy is an effective diagnostic modality for sampling the digestive tract and surrounding areas. However, a meta-analysis summarizing the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided biopsy for pelvic lesions has not been published.AimsWe aimed to evaluate the utility of EUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of pelvic lesions.MethodsArticles were identified via structured database search; only studies where pelvic lesions were confirmed by surgery or clinical follow-up were included. Data extracted were selected with strict criteria. A fixed-effects model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was also constructed.ResultsTen studies containing a total of 246 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity of EUS-guided biopsy for differential diagnosis of pelvic masses was 0.89 (95 % CI 0.83–0.94), and the specificity was 0.93 (95 % CI 0.86–0.97). The area under the SROC was 0.9631. The combined PLR, NLR, and DOR were 11.75 (95 % CI 5.90–23.43), 0.12 (95 % CI 0.07–0.20), and 100.06 (95 % CI 37.48–267.10) respectively. There is potential presence of publication bias in this meta-analysis.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis shows that EUS-guided biopsy is a powerful tool for differentiating pelvic masses with a high sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, it is a safe procedure with low rate of complication, although more high-quality prospective studies are required to be done.