Cargando…

Accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing hydatidiform moles (HMs) from nonmolar specimens and the subclassification of HM are important because complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is associated with an increased risk of development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. However, diagnosis based solely on morphology...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Madi, JM, Braga, A, Paganella, MP, Litvin, IE, Wendland, EM
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29782064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15289
_version_ 1783348614043533312
author Madi, JM
Braga, A
Paganella, MP
Litvin, IE
Wendland, EM
author_facet Madi, JM
Braga, A
Paganella, MP
Litvin, IE
Wendland, EM
author_sort Madi, JM
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Distinguishing hydatidiform moles (HMs) from nonmolar specimens and the subclassification of HM are important because complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is associated with an increased risk of development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. However, diagnosis based solely on morphology has poor inter‐observer reproducibility. Recent studies have demonstrated that the use of p57(KIP) (2) immunostaining improves diagnostic accuracy for CHM. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) immunostaining compared with molecular genotyping for the diagnosis of CHM. SEARCH STRATEGY: Major databases were searched from inception to March 2017 using the terms ‘hydatidiform mole’, ‘p57’, and ‘genotyping’, with their variations, and the search limit for the relevant study design. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any cross‐sectional study, case series, case–control study, cohort study, or clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) immunostaining for the diagnosis of CHM compared with genotyping was included. Case reports, narrative reviews, expert opinions, and animal testing were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Extracted accuracy data were tabulated and pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Bivariate meta‐analysis produced a summary sensitivity of 0.984 (95% CI: 0.916–1.000) and specificity of 0.625 (95% CI: 0.503–0.736) with significant heterogeneity for specificity (I (2) = 71.8, chi‐square P = 0.029). The pooled summary diagnostic odds ratio was 56.54 (95% CI: 11.03–289.74) with no heterogeneity (I (2) = 0.00%, chi‐square P = 0.67). The diagnostic performance of the test was high with an area under the curve of (AUC) 0.980. CONCLUSIONS: p57(KIP) (2) immunostaining is accurate when diagnosing CHM. It can be used as an adjunct test in a combination algorithmic approach. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A meta‐analysis to evaluate the accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose CHM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6099212
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60992122018-08-23 Accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis Madi, JM Braga, A Paganella, MP Litvin, IE Wendland, EM BJOG Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: Distinguishing hydatidiform moles (HMs) from nonmolar specimens and the subclassification of HM are important because complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is associated with an increased risk of development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. However, diagnosis based solely on morphology has poor inter‐observer reproducibility. Recent studies have demonstrated that the use of p57(KIP) (2) immunostaining improves diagnostic accuracy for CHM. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) immunostaining compared with molecular genotyping for the diagnosis of CHM. SEARCH STRATEGY: Major databases were searched from inception to March 2017 using the terms ‘hydatidiform mole’, ‘p57’, and ‘genotyping’, with their variations, and the search limit for the relevant study design. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any cross‐sectional study, case series, case–control study, cohort study, or clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) immunostaining for the diagnosis of CHM compared with genotyping was included. Case reports, narrative reviews, expert opinions, and animal testing were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Extracted accuracy data were tabulated and pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Bivariate meta‐analysis produced a summary sensitivity of 0.984 (95% CI: 0.916–1.000) and specificity of 0.625 (95% CI: 0.503–0.736) with significant heterogeneity for specificity (I (2) = 71.8, chi‐square P = 0.029). The pooled summary diagnostic odds ratio was 56.54 (95% CI: 11.03–289.74) with no heterogeneity (I (2) = 0.00%, chi‐square P = 0.67). The diagnostic performance of the test was high with an area under the curve of (AUC) 0.980. CONCLUSIONS: p57(KIP) (2) immunostaining is accurate when diagnosing CHM. It can be used as an adjunct test in a combination algorithmic approach. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A meta‐analysis to evaluate the accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose CHM. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-06-15 2018-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6099212/ /pubmed/29782064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15289 Text en © 2018 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Madi, JM
Braga, A
Paganella, MP
Litvin, IE
Wendland, EM
Accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Accuracy of p57(KIP) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort accuracy of p57(kip) (2) compared with genotyping to diagnose complete hydatidiform mole: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29782064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15289
work_keys_str_mv AT madijm accuracyofp57kip2comparedwithgenotypingtodiagnosecompletehydatidiformmoleasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bragaa accuracyofp57kip2comparedwithgenotypingtodiagnosecompletehydatidiformmoleasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT paganellamp accuracyofp57kip2comparedwithgenotypingtodiagnosecompletehydatidiformmoleasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT litvinie accuracyofp57kip2comparedwithgenotypingtodiagnosecompletehydatidiformmoleasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wendlandem accuracyofp57kip2comparedwithgenotypingtodiagnosecompletehydatidiformmoleasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis