Meta‐analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in diagnosing axillary lymph node metastasis. BJS 2018; 105: 1244-1253.
Published: 4th July 2018
Authors: I. Balasubramanian, C. A. Fleming, M. A. Corrigan, H. P. Redmond, M. J. Kerin, A. J. Lowery et al.
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.
Method
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 textYou may also be interested in
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: G. Gui, A. Agusti, D. Twelves, S. Tang, M. Kabir, C. Montgomery et al.
Notes: Identifies causative lesion
Original article
Authors: C. Dahlbäck, A. Ringberg, J. Manjer
Notes: Better methods needed
Original article
Authors: R. L. O'Connell, E. Baker, A. Trickey, T. Rattay, L. Whisker, R. D. Macmillan et al.
Notes: Reduces mastectomy rates
Original article
Authors: M. C. van Maaren, L. J. A. Strobbe, L. B. Koppert, P. M. P. Poortmans, S. Siesling
Notes: Regional differences remain
Original article
Authors: A. Svee, M. Mani, K. Sandquist, T. Audolfsson, Y. Folkvaljon, A. E. Isern et al.
Original article
Authors: N. Patani, F. MacAskill, S. Eshelby, A. Omar, A. Kaura, K. Contractor et al.
Notes: Outcomes improve
Systematic review
Authors: C. A. Fleming, H. M. Heneghan, D. O'Brien, D. P. McCartan, E. W. McDermott, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: Counselling of patients important
Original article
Authors: J. de Boniface, J. Frisell, L. Bergkvist, Y. Andersson
Notes: RT to lower axilla key?
Leading article
Authors: M. Ahmed, M. Douek
Systematic review
Authors: T. K. Krastev, S. J. Schop, J. Hommes, A. A. Piatkowski, E. M. Heuts, R. R. W. J. van der Hulst et al.
Notes: Lipofilling ok
Original article
Authors: S. E. Ward, P. D. Richards, J. L. Morgan, G. R. Holmes, J. W. Broggio, K. Collins et al.
Notes: Surgery should be first choice
Original article
Authors: H. Adam, A. C. Docherty Skogh, Å. Edsander Nord, I. Schultz, J. Gahm, P. Hall et al.
Notes: Deep inferior epigastric perforator is safe
Your comments
0 Comments