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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |