Cargando…

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis

Background  The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) is crucial for patient management and clinical outcome. The use of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been evaluated in several studies with diverse results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to eval...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lisotti, Andrea, Ricci, Claudio, Serrani, Marta, Calvanese, Claudio, Sferrazza, Sandro, Brighi, Nicole, Casadei, Riccardo, Fusaroli, Pietro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31044153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0854-3785
_version_ 1783408499090259968
author Lisotti, Andrea
Ricci, Claudio
Serrani, Marta
Calvanese, Claudio
Sferrazza, Sandro
Brighi, Nicole
Casadei, Riccardo
Fusaroli, Pietro
author_facet Lisotti, Andrea
Ricci, Claudio
Serrani, Marta
Calvanese, Claudio
Sferrazza, Sandro
Brighi, Nicole
Casadei, Riccardo
Fusaroli, Pietro
author_sort Lisotti, Andrea
collection PubMed
description Background  The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) is crucial for patient management and clinical outcome. The use of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been evaluated in several studies with diverse results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) in this setting. Methods  A systematic electronic search was performed, including all original papers dealing with assessment of the nature of the LNs using CE-EUS or CH-EUS. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. The Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve method was used to calculate the area under the curve. Statistical analysis was carried out using Meta-Disc V.1.4, Stata V.12.0 and Review Manager V.5.2. Results  Among 210 pertinent studies, four (336 patients) were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 82.1 % (75.1 – 87.7 %) and pooled specificity was 90.7 % (85.9 – 94.3 %) with significant heterogeneity found in sensitivity; the positive-likelihood ratio (LR) was 7.77 (5.09 – 11.85) and the negative-LR was 0.15 (0.05 – 0.46); the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 54 (15 – 190). Subgroup analysis including studies performed using CH-EUS (two studies, 177 LNs) showed a pooled sensitivity of 87.7 % (77.0 – 93.9 %) and a pooled specificity of 91.8 % (84.5 % – 96.4 %) with no significant heterogeneity; the pooled positive-LR was 9.51 (4.95 – 18.28) and the pooled negative-LR was 0.14 (0.06 – 0.35); pooled DOR was 68.42 (15.5 – 301.4). Conclusions  From these data, CE-EUS is not recommended due to inadequate sensitivity. On the other hand, CH-EUS studies showed optimal accuracy (pooled sensitivity 87.7 % and specificity 91.8 %), comparable to elastography and even EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), suggesting a role in the diagnostic algorithm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6447401
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher © Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64474012019-05-01 Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis Lisotti, Andrea Ricci, Claudio Serrani, Marta Calvanese, Claudio Sferrazza, Sandro Brighi, Nicole Casadei, Riccardo Fusaroli, Pietro Endosc Int Open Background  The differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) is crucial for patient management and clinical outcome. The use of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been evaluated in several studies with diverse results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) in this setting. Methods  A systematic electronic search was performed, including all original papers dealing with assessment of the nature of the LNs using CE-EUS or CH-EUS. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. The Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve method was used to calculate the area under the curve. Statistical analysis was carried out using Meta-Disc V.1.4, Stata V.12.0 and Review Manager V.5.2. Results  Among 210 pertinent studies, four (336 patients) were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 82.1 % (75.1 – 87.7 %) and pooled specificity was 90.7 % (85.9 – 94.3 %) with significant heterogeneity found in sensitivity; the positive-likelihood ratio (LR) was 7.77 (5.09 – 11.85) and the negative-LR was 0.15 (0.05 – 0.46); the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 54 (15 – 190). Subgroup analysis including studies performed using CH-EUS (two studies, 177 LNs) showed a pooled sensitivity of 87.7 % (77.0 – 93.9 %) and a pooled specificity of 91.8 % (84.5 % – 96.4 %) with no significant heterogeneity; the pooled positive-LR was 9.51 (4.95 – 18.28) and the pooled negative-LR was 0.14 (0.06 – 0.35); pooled DOR was 68.42 (15.5 – 301.4). Conclusions  From these data, CE-EUS is not recommended due to inadequate sensitivity. On the other hand, CH-EUS studies showed optimal accuracy (pooled sensitivity 87.7 % and specificity 91.8 %), comparable to elastography and even EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), suggesting a role in the diagnostic algorithm. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019-04 2019-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6447401/ /pubmed/31044153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0854-3785 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Lisotti, Andrea
Ricci, Claudio
Serrani, Marta
Calvanese, Claudio
Sferrazza, Sandro
Brighi, Nicole
Casadei, Riccardo
Fusaroli, Pietro
Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis
title Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis
title_full Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis
title_short Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis
title_sort contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lymph nodes: a meta-analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31044153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0854-3785
work_keys_str_mv AT lisottiandrea contrastenhancedendoscopicultrasoundforthedifferentialdiagnosisbetweenbenignandmalignantlymphnodesametaanalysis
AT ricciclaudio contrastenhancedendoscopicultrasoundforthedifferentialdiagnosisbetweenbenignandmalignantlymphnodesametaanalysis
AT serranimarta contrastenhancedendoscopicultrasoundforthedifferentialdiagnosisbetweenbenignandmalignantlymphnodesametaanalysis
AT calvaneseclaudio contrastenhancedendoscopicultrasoundforthedifferentialdiagnosisbetweenbenignandmalignantlymphnodesametaanalysis
AT sferrazzasandro contrastenhancedendoscopicultrasoundforthedifferentialdiagnosisbetweenbenignandmalignantlymphnodesametaanalysis
AT brighinicole contrastenhancedendoscopicultrasoundforthedifferentialdiagnosisbetweenbenignandmalignantlymphnodesametaanalysis
AT casadeiriccardo contrastenhancedendoscopicultrasoundforthedifferentialdiagnosisbetweenbenignandmalignantlymphnodesametaanalysis
AT fusarolipietro contrastenhancedendoscopicultrasoundforthedifferentialdiagnosisbetweenbenignandmalignantlymphnodesametaanalysis