• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy

L. Marconi, S. Dabestani, TB. Lam, F. Hofmann, F. Stewart, J. Norrie, A. Bex, K. Bensalah, SE. Canfield, M. Hora, MA. Kuczyk, AS. Merseburger, PF. Mulders, T. Powles, M. Staehler, B. Ljungberg, A. Volpe,

. 2016 ; 69 (4) : 660-73. [pub] 20150829

Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc17001035

CONTEXT: The role of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy (RTB) remains controversial due to uncertainties regarding its diagnostic accuracy and safety. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and accuracy of percutaneous RTB for the diagnosis of malignancy, histologic tumour subtype, and grade. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies providing data on diagnostic accuracy and complications of percutaneous core biopsy (CB) or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of renal tumours. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of malignancy. The Cohen kappa coefficient (κ) was estimated for the analysis of histotype/grade concordance between diagnosis on RTB and surgical specimen. Risk of bias assessment was performed (QUADAS-2). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 57 studies recruiting 5228 patients were included. The overall median diagnostic rate of RTB was 92%. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic CBs and FNAs were 99.1% and 99.7%, and 93.2% and 89.8%, respectively. A good (κ = 0.683) and a fair (κ = 0.34) agreement were observed between histologic subtype and Fuhrman grade on RTB and surgical specimen, respectively. A very low rate of Clavien ≥ 2 complications was reported. Study limitations included selection and differential-verification bias. CONCLUSIONS: RTB is safe and has a high diagnostic yield in experienced centres. Both CB and FNA have good accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy and histologic subtype, with better performance for CB. The accuracy for Fuhrman grade is fair. Overall, the quality of the evidence was moderate. Prospective cohort studies recruiting consecutive patients and using homogeneous reference standards are required. PATIENT SUMMARY: We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the safety and diagnostic performance of renal tumour biopsy (RTB). The results suggest that RTB has good accuracy in diagnosing renal cancer and its subtypes, and it appears to be safe. However, the quality of evidence was moderate, and better quality studies are required to provide a more definitive answer.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc17001035
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20170113115141.0
007      
ta
008      
170103s2016 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.072 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.072 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)26323946
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Marconi, Lorenzo $u Department of Urology, Coimbra University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal.
245    10
$a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy / $c L. Marconi, S. Dabestani, TB. Lam, F. Hofmann, F. Stewart, J. Norrie, A. Bex, K. Bensalah, SE. Canfield, M. Hora, MA. Kuczyk, AS. Merseburger, PF. Mulders, T. Powles, M. Staehler, B. Ljungberg, A. Volpe,
520    9_
$a CONTEXT: The role of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy (RTB) remains controversial due to uncertainties regarding its diagnostic accuracy and safety. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and accuracy of percutaneous RTB for the diagnosis of malignancy, histologic tumour subtype, and grade. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies providing data on diagnostic accuracy and complications of percutaneous core biopsy (CB) or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of renal tumours. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of malignancy. The Cohen kappa coefficient (κ) was estimated for the analysis of histotype/grade concordance between diagnosis on RTB and surgical specimen. Risk of bias assessment was performed (QUADAS-2). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 57 studies recruiting 5228 patients were included. The overall median diagnostic rate of RTB was 92%. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic CBs and FNAs were 99.1% and 99.7%, and 93.2% and 89.8%, respectively. A good (κ = 0.683) and a fair (κ = 0.34) agreement were observed between histologic subtype and Fuhrman grade on RTB and surgical specimen, respectively. A very low rate of Clavien ≥ 2 complications was reported. Study limitations included selection and differential-verification bias. CONCLUSIONS: RTB is safe and has a high diagnostic yield in experienced centres. Both CB and FNA have good accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy and histologic subtype, with better performance for CB. The accuracy for Fuhrman grade is fair. Overall, the quality of the evidence was moderate. Prospective cohort studies recruiting consecutive patients and using homogeneous reference standards are required. PATIENT SUMMARY: We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the safety and diagnostic performance of renal tumour biopsy (RTB). The results suggest that RTB has good accuracy in diagnosing renal cancer and its subtypes, and it appears to be safe. However, the quality of evidence was moderate, and better quality studies are required to provide a more definitive answer.
650    12
$a tenkojehlová biopsie $7 D044963
650    12
$a biopsie dutou jehlou $7 D062005
650    _2
$a karcinom z renálních buněk $x patologie $7 D002292
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a nádory ledvin $x patologie $7 D007680
650    _2
$a stupeň nádoru $7 D060787
650    _2
$a odchylka pozorovatele $7 D015588
650    _2
$a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Dabestani, Saeed $u Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
700    1_
$a Lam, Thomas B $u Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
700    1_
$a Hofmann, Fabian $u Department of Urology, Sunderby Hospital, Sunderby, Sweden.
700    1_
$a Stewart, Fiona $u Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
700    1_
$a Norrie, John $u Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK.
700    1_
$a Bex, Axel $u Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Bensalah, Karim $u Department of Urology, University of Rennes, Rennes, France.
700    1_
$a Canfield, Steven E $u Division of Urology, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
700    1_
$a Hora, Milan $u Department of Urology, Faculty Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Kuczyk, Markus A $u Department of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
700    1_
$a Merseburger, Axel S $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.
700    1_
$a Mulders, Peter F A $u Department of Urology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Powles, Thomas $u Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
700    1_
$a Staehler, Michael $u Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
700    1_
$a Ljungberg, Borje $u Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
700    1_
$a Volpe, Alessandro $u Division of Urology, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy. Electronic address: alessandro.volpe@med.uniupo.it.
773    0_
$w MED00001669 $t European urology $x 1873-7560 $g Roč. 69, č. 4 (2016), s. 660-73
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26323946 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20170103 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20170113115242 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1180175 $s 961602
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 69 $c 4 $d 660-73 $e 20150829 $i 1873-7560 $m European urology $n Eur Urol $x MED00001669
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20170103
Zpět

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace