We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in diagnosing axillary lymph node metastasis.
British Journal of Surgery 2018 September
BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node status remains a significant prognostic indicator in breast cancer. Here, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA) and ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) in axillary staging was compared.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken of all published studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of US-CNB and US-FNA of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Studies were included if raw data were available on the diagnostic performance of both US-FNA and US-CNB, and compared with final histology results. Relevant data were extracted from each study for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US-FNA and US-CNB were obtained using a bivariable model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) graphs were created to confirm diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: Data on a total of 1353 patients from six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. US-CNB was superior to US-FNA in diagnosing axillary nodal metastases: sensitivity 88 (95 per cent c.i. 84 to 91) versus 74 (70 to 78) per cent respectively. Both US-CNB and US-FNA had a high specificity of 100 per cent. Reported complication rates were significantly higher for US-CNB compared with US-FNA (7·1 versus 1·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Conversely, the requirement for repeat diagnostic procedures was significantly greater for US-FNA (4·0 versus 0·5 per cent; P < 0·001).
CONCLUSION: US-CNB is a superior diagnostic technique to US-FNA for axillary staging in breast cancer.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken of all published studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of US-CNB and US-FNA of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Studies were included if raw data were available on the diagnostic performance of both US-FNA and US-CNB, and compared with final histology results. Relevant data were extracted from each study for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US-FNA and US-CNB were obtained using a bivariable model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) graphs were created to confirm diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: Data on a total of 1353 patients from six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. US-CNB was superior to US-FNA in diagnosing axillary nodal metastases: sensitivity 88 (95 per cent c.i. 84 to 91) versus 74 (70 to 78) per cent respectively. Both US-CNB and US-FNA had a high specificity of 100 per cent. Reported complication rates were significantly higher for US-CNB compared with US-FNA (7·1 versus 1·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Conversely, the requirement for repeat diagnostic procedures was significantly greater for US-FNA (4·0 versus 0·5 per cent; P < 0·001).
CONCLUSION: US-CNB is a superior diagnostic technique to US-FNA for axillary staging in breast cancer.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Anti-Arrhythmic Effects of Heart Failure Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Their Role in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: From Beta-Blockers to Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Beyond.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 Februrary 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app