Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lymph node status is the key to determining the prognosis and treatment of cervical cancer. However, it cannot be assessed clinically, and testing for nodal metastasis is controversial. We sought to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy literature on sentinel node biopsy, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography to evaluate the accuracy of each index test in determining lymph node status in patients with cervical cancer.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), Medion (1980-2006) and the Cochrane library (Issue 2, 2006) for relevant articles. We also manually searched the reference lists from primary articles and reviews, and we contacted experts in the field for conference abstracts and unpublished studies. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of accuracy indices, and we performed meta-regression analysis to test the effect of study quality on diagnostic accuracy and to identify other sources of heterogeneity.

Results

We included 72 relevant primary studies, involving a total of 5042 women, in our analysis. We found that, in determining lymph node status, sentinel node biopsy had a pooled positive likelihood ratio of 40.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.6-67.6) and a pooled negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (95% CI 0.14-0.24). The pooled positive likelihood ratios (and 95% CI) were 15.3 (7.9-29.6) for positron emission tomography, 6.4 (4.9-8.3) for magnetic resonance imaging and 4.3 (3.0-6.2) for computed tomography. The pooled negative likelihood ratios (and 95% CIs) were 0.27 (0.11-0.66) for positron emission tomography, 0.50 (0.39-0.64) for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.58 (0.48-0.70) for computed tomography. Using a 27% pretest probability of lymph node metastasis among all cases (regardless of stage), we found that a positive sentinel node biopsy result increased post-test probability to 94% (95% CI 90%-96%), whereas a positive finding on positron emission tomography increased it to 85% (75%-92%).

Interpretation

Sentinel node biopsy has greater accuracy in determining lymph node status among women with primary cervical cancer than current commonly used imaging methods.

SUBMITTER: Selman TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2267838 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Selman Tara J TJ Mann Christopher C Zamora Javier J Appleyard Tracy-Louise TL Khan Khalid K

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20080301 7

<h4>Background</h4>Lymph node status is the key to determining the prognosis and treatment of cervical cancer. However, it cannot be assessed clinically, and testing for nodal metastasis is controversial. We sought to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy literature on sentinel node biopsy, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography to evaluate the accuracy of each index test in determining lymph node status in patients with cervical cancer.<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 18362381

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe use of ultrasonography (US) vs cross-sectional imaging for preoperative evaluation of papillary thyroid cancer is debated.ObjectiveTo compare thyroid US and computed tomography (CT) in the preoperative evaluation of papillary thyroid cancer for cervical lymph node metastasis (CLNM), as well as extrathyroidal disease extension.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase were searched from January 1, 2000, to July 18, 2020.Study selectionStudies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of US and/or CT in individuals with treatment-naive papillary thyroid cancer for CLNM and/or extrathyroidal disease extension were included. The reference standard was defined as histopathology/cytology or imaging follow-up. Independent title and abstract review (2515 studies) followed by full-text review (145 studies) was completed by multiple investigators.Data extraction and synthesisPRISMA guidelines were followed. Methodologic and diagnostic accuracy data were abstracted independently by multiple investigators. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool independently and in duplicate. Bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis and multivariable meta-regression modeling was used.Main outcomes and measuresDiagnostic test accuracy of US and CT of the neck for lateral and central compartment CLNM, as well as for extrathyroidal disease extension, determined prior to study commencement.ResultsA total of 47 studies encompassing 31 942 observations for thyroid cancer (12 771 with CLNM; 1747 with extrathyroidal thyroid extension) were included; 21 and 26 studies were at low and high risk for bias, respectively. Based on comparative design studies, US and CT demonstrated no significant difference in sensitivity (73% [95% CI, 64%-80%] and 77% [95% CI, 67%-85%], respectively; P = .11) or specificity (89% [95% CI, 80%-94%] and 88% [95% CI, 79%-94%], respectively; P = .79) for lateral compartment CLNM. For central compartment metastasis, sensitivity was higher in CT (39% [95% CI, 27%-52%]) vs US (28% [95% CI, 21%-36%]; P = .004), while specificity was higher in US (95% [95% CI, 92%-98%]) vs CT (87% [95% CI, 77%-93%]; P < .001). Ultrasonography demonstrated a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI, 81%-96%) and specificity of 47% (95% CI, 35%-60%) for extrathyroidal extension.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that further study is warranted of the role of CT for papillary thyroid cancer staging, possibly as an adjunct to US.

Project description:Background and purposeContrast-enhanced CT protocols for papillary thyroid cancer are yet to be optimized. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of arterial phase CT and delayed-phase CT protocols for lateral cervical lymph node metastasis from papillary thyroid carcinoma by using the lymph node tissue attenuation.Materials and methodsThis retrospective study included 327 lateral cervical lymph nodes (177 metastatic and 150 benign) from 131 patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma (107 initially diagnosed and 24 recurrences). Patients underwent CT by using 1 of 3 protocols: a 70-second (A) or a 35-second (B) delay with 100 mL of iodinated IV contrast or a 25-second delay with 75 mL of IV contrast (C). Two readers independently measured and compared lymph node tissue attenuation between metastatic and benign lymph nodes. An area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to differentiate metastatic and benign lymph nodes after multiple comparison correction for clustered data and was compared across the protocols.ResultsThe difference in mean lymph node tissue attenuation between metastatic and benign lymph nodes was maximum in protocol C (P < .001 for both readers). Protocol C showed the highest diagnostic performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.88-0.92) compared with protocol A (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.73-0.74, P < .001 for both readers) and B (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, .63-0.65, P < .01 for both readers). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of lymph node tissue attenuation by using a 99-HU cutoff value were 83%-87%, 93.7%-97.9%, 95.1%-97.3%, and 81.2%-87%.ConclusionsA combination of 25-second delay CT and 75 mL of iodinated IV contrast can improve the diagnostic accuracy for lateral lymph node metastasis from papillary thyroid carcinoma compared with a combination of a 35- or 70-second delay with 100-mL of iodinated IV contrast.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets