-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
How the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology works in cytopathology practice: Meta-analysis of prospective studies and comparison with retrospective studies
H. Lagerstam, D. Kalfert, Z. Maleki, I. Kholová
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, srovnávací studie
Grantová podpora
Charles University Cooperatio Program
Pirkanmaa Hospital District
NLK
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 2012-06-25 do Před 1 rokem
Wiley Free Content
od 2009 do Před 1 rokem
PubMed
38594082
DOI
10.1002/cncy.22815
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- cytodiagnostika metody MeSH
- cytologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory slinných žláz * patologie diagnóza MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- slinné žlázy * patologie MeSH
- tenkojehlová biopsie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- metaanalýza MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) is widely accepted and endorsed by professional societies. Although several studies focusing on the MSRSGC have been published, few have been prospective studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the MSRSGC in cytopathology practice. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all prospective studies on the MSRSGC. The risk of malignancy (ROM), risk of neoplasm, and diagnostic accuracy for each diagnostic category were calculated. Data were tabulated in Microsoft Excel, and analyses were performed with the Open Meta-Analyst program. RESULTS: Seven prospective and seven retrospective studies were identified. The total number of fine-needle aspirations (FNAs) was 1587 in the prospective studies and 1764 in the retrospective studies. The ROM values for the nondiagnostic, nonneoplastic, atypia of undetermined significance, benign neoplasm, salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant categories in prospective versus retrospective studies were 21.0% versus 26.6%, 9.4% versus 8.1%, 34.9% versus 39.6%, 2.4% versus 2.1%, 36.6% versus 31.2%, 86.0% versus 66.0%, and 97.0% versus 96.7%, respectively. Sensitivities, specificities, and diagnostic odds ratios were 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.1%-90.8%) versus 89.1% (95% CI, 83.6%-92.9%), 98.4% (95% CI, 96.6%-99.3%) versus 94.9% (95% CI, 91.9%-96.9%), and 310.7 (95% CI, 121.2-796.6) versus 218.8 (95% CI, 107.3-438.1). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicated that the MSRSGC works well in FNA cytopathology practice and improves diagnostic accuracy in all diagnostic categories. The ROMs of prospective studies were in concordance with the MSRSGC reference values.
Department of Pathology Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore Maryland USA
Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology Tampere University Tampere Finland
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc24019932
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20241024110858.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 241015s2024 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1002/cncy.22815 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)38594082
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Lagerstam, Henri $u Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland $u Pathology, Fimlab Laboratories, Tampere, Finland
- 245 10
- $a How the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology works in cytopathology practice: Meta-analysis of prospective studies and comparison with retrospective studies / $c H. Lagerstam, D. Kalfert, Z. Maleki, I. Kholová
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) is widely accepted and endorsed by professional societies. Although several studies focusing on the MSRSGC have been published, few have been prospective studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the MSRSGC in cytopathology practice. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all prospective studies on the MSRSGC. The risk of malignancy (ROM), risk of neoplasm, and diagnostic accuracy for each diagnostic category were calculated. Data were tabulated in Microsoft Excel, and analyses were performed with the Open Meta-Analyst program. RESULTS: Seven prospective and seven retrospective studies were identified. The total number of fine-needle aspirations (FNAs) was 1587 in the prospective studies and 1764 in the retrospective studies. The ROM values for the nondiagnostic, nonneoplastic, atypia of undetermined significance, benign neoplasm, salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant categories in prospective versus retrospective studies were 21.0% versus 26.6%, 9.4% versus 8.1%, 34.9% versus 39.6%, 2.4% versus 2.1%, 36.6% versus 31.2%, 86.0% versus 66.0%, and 97.0% versus 96.7%, respectively. Sensitivities, specificities, and diagnostic odds ratios were 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.1%-90.8%) versus 89.1% (95% CI, 83.6%-92.9%), 98.4% (95% CI, 96.6%-99.3%) versus 94.9% (95% CI, 91.9%-96.9%), and 310.7 (95% CI, 121.2-796.6) versus 218.8 (95% CI, 107.3-438.1). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicated that the MSRSGC works well in FNA cytopathology practice and improves diagnostic accuracy in all diagnostic categories. The ROMs of prospective studies were in concordance with the MSRSGC reference values.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a nádory slinných žláz $x patologie $x diagnóza $7 D012468
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 _2
- $a tenkojehlová biopsie $7 D044963
- 650 12
- $a slinné žlázy $x patologie $7 D012469
- 650 _2
- $a cytodiagnostika $x metody $7 D003581
- 650 _2
- $a cytologie $7 D000093222
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a metaanalýza $7 D017418
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 700 1_
- $a Kalfert, David $u Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Maleki, Zahra $u Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA $1 https://orcid.org/0000000332734802
- 700 1_
- $a Kholová, Ivana $u Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland $u Pathology, Fimlab Laboratories, Tampere, Finland $1 https://orcid.org/0000000340890450 $7 xx0081827
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001036 $t Cancer cytopathology $x 1934-6638 $g Roč. 132, č. 7 (2024), s. 447-457
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38594082 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20241015 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20241024110852 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2202261 $s 1231905
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 132 $c 7 $d 447-457 $e 20240409 $i 1934-6638 $m Cancer cytopathology $n Cancer Cytopathol $x MED00001036
- GRA __
- $p Charles University Cooperatio Program
- GRA __
- $p Pirkanmaa Hospital District
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20241015
