超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检对胰腺实性占位定性诊断价值的Meta分析

目的:系统评价超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检(EUS-FNA)在胰腺实性占位定性诊断中的价值.方法:计算机检索MEDLINE、Cochrane Library、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库、中国学术期刊全文等数据库,检索时间均为建库至2011-10.全面查找有关EUS-FNA诊断胰腺实性占位的文献,按照诊断试验的纳入标准筛选文献,提取纳入文献的特征信息(研究背景、设计信息和诊断参数信息),根据QUADAS质量评价标准纳入文献的质量.采用Meta-Disc1.4软件进行Meta分析,检验异质性,并根据异质性结果选择相应的效应模型.对纳入文献予以加权定量合并,计算汇总敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比和诊断优势比及其95%CI,绘制汇总受试者工作特征(SROC)曲线,并计算曲线下面积(AUC).结果:共检索出相关文献280篇,按照文献纳入标准,最终纳入18篇文献(均为英文文献).EUS-FNA对胰腺实性占位定性诊断价值分别为:汇总敏感度为0.90[95%CI(0.89-0.92)],汇总特异度为0.95[95%CI(0.93-0.97)],汇总阳性似然比为13.56[95%CI(8.31-22.15)],汇总阴性似然比为0.12[95%CI(0.10-0.15)],汇总诊断优势比为143.62[95%CI(93.98-219.46)],SROC曲线下面积AUC为0.9711,Q*=0.9215.另外,本研究还对有无病理医生在场指导进行了亚组分析,发现有病理医生在场的AUC为0.9757,Q*=0.9295.且汇总诊断优势比173.37[95%CI(98.09-306.44)],明显较无病理医生在场的113.64[95%CI(60.22-214.46)]高.结论:经SROC曲线证实,EUS-FNA活检在胰腺实性占位定性诊断中具有较高的灵敏度和特异度,尤其是有病理医生在场指导的情况下,可作为临床上胰腺实性占位定性诊断的重要检查手段.     

CT-Base Pulmonary Artery Measurementin the Detection of Pulmonary Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

To summarize the performance of CT-based main pulmonary artery diameter or pulmonary artery to aorta ratio (PA:A ratio) measurement in detection of pulmonary hypertension by a systematic review and meta-analysis.A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies determining diagnostic accuracy of main pulmonary artery diameter or PA:A ratio measurement for pulmonary hypertension. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A bivariate random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (PLR/NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were used to summarize overall diagnostic performance.This meta-analysis included 20 publications involving 2134 subjects. Summary estimates for main pulmonary artery diameter measurement in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension were as follows: sensitivity, 0.79 (95% CI 0.72–0.84); specificity, 0.83 (95% CI 0.75–0.89); PLR, 4.68 (95% CI 3.13–6.99); NLR, 0.26 (95% CI 0.20–0.33); DOR, 18.13 (95% CI 10.87–30.24); and AUC 0.87. The corresponding summary performance estimates for using the PA:A ratio were as follows: sensitivity, 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.80); specificity, 0.81 (95% CI 0.74–0.86); PLR, 3.83 (95% CI, 2.70–5.43); NLR, 0.33 (95% CI 0.24–0.44); DOR, 11.77 (95% CI 6.60–21.00); and AUC 0.84.Both main pulmonary artery diameter and PA:A ratio are helpful for diagnosing pulmonary hypertension. Nevertheless, the results of pulmonary artery measurement should be interpreted in parallel with the results of traditional tests such as echocardiography.     

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: It is difficult to diagnose the cause of abdominal lymphadenopathy without determining the primary lesions. With the advent of curved ultrasound endoscopy, EUS-FNA can sample lymph nodes safely, accurately and conveniently. Due to the lack of formal quantitative and comprehensive literature review to determine the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of enlarged intra-abdominal lymph nodes of unknown origin, we conducted this study to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in the enlarged intra-abdominal lymph nodes.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to collect related studies and diagnostic performance data. We used a random-effects model to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup and meta-regression analysis.

Results: Twelve eligible studies involved 774 patients were identified. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of all studies is 94% (95% CI: 91% to 96%) and 98% (95% CI: 96% to 99%), respectively. The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios are 17.44 (95% CI, 6.50 to 46.79) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.14). The pooled DOR is 277.82 (95% CI, 97.65 to 790.46).

Conclusions: EUS-FNA is a safe and feasible technique with high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of abdominal lymph node enlargement. Considering the limitations and heterogeneity, high-quality studies are needed to further explore the diagnostic value of EUS-FNA.     

Diagnostic Value of Ankle-Brachial Index in Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Meta-analysis

Background

In a previous review, we reported that ankle brachial index (ABI) ≤ 0.90 could reliably identify patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Since then, more studies have been published which may extend the power of a meta-analysis of studies of diagnostic accuracy of the ABI. MEDLINE and several other databases were searched for studies on sensitivity and specificity of using ABI ≤ 0.90 for PAD diagnosis compared with angiography.

Methods

Quality of each study was assessed by standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy initiative and quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic, χ², and inconsistency index. The area under the curve and Q* were estimated using summary receiver operator curve. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of ABI ≤ 0.90 to diagnose PAD were estimated using Meta-DiSc software (Meta-DiSc, Madrid, Spain).

Results

Four studies comprising 569 patients (922 limbs) met inclusion criteria. Significant heterogeneity among these studies was not detected in DOR but was evident in pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR. The area under the curve under the summary receiver operator curve is 0.87 (standard error = 0.02) and diagnostic accuracy (Q*) is 0.80 (standard error = 0.02). Additionally, DOR was 15.33 with corresponding 95% confidence intervals of 9.39-25.02. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ABI ≤ 0.90 for PAD diagnosis were 75% and 86% and the pooled PLR and NLR were 4.18 and 0.29, respectively.

Conclusions

We conclude that test of ABI ≤ 0.90 can be a useful tool to identify PAD with serious stenosis in clinical practice.     

Endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle biopsy for the diagnosis of intrathoracic lymph node metastases from extrathoracic malignancies: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

Intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancies are a common clinical manifestation. Several studies evaluating intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancy by using the endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) have been reported. The objective of this meta‐analysis is to investigate the diagnostic value of EBUS‐TBNA for diagnosing intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancies. We systematically searched Cochrane Library, Medline and Embase for relevant studies published prior to May 2013. Studies specifically designed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EBUS‐TBNA for intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with an extrathoracic malignancy were selected. Diagnostic accuracy meta‐analysis was conducted by pooling estimates of sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) derived from a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) analysis of the original studies. Six studies were included, which provided a dataset of 533 patients. EBUS‐TBNA pooled estimates had 0.85 sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80–0.89), 0.99 specificity (95% CI: 0.95–1.00), PLR 28.63 (95% CI: 11.51–71.22) and NLR 0.16 (95% CI: 0.12–0.21). The overall DOR was 179.77 (95% CI: 66.29–487.50). The area under the SROC curve and the diagnostic accuracy were 0.9247 and 0.8588, respectively. Evidence gathered from studies of moderate quality reveals a high degree of diagnostic accuracy of EBUS‐TBNA for diagnosing intrathoracic lymph node metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancies.     

Diagnostic accuracy of dual‐source computed tomography angiography for the detection of coronary in‐stent restenosis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

We sought to perform a meta‐analysis to comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dual‐source computed tomography angiography (DSCTA) in detecting coronary in‐stent restenosis (CISR) when compared to invasive coronary angiography. The stent‐based research studies in which DSCTA was used as diagnostic tool for CISR, as recent as of October 2017, from several reputed scientific libraries (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were evaluated. Study inclusion, data extraction, and risk bias assessment were conducted by two researchers independently. Pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under summary receiver operator characteristics (SROC) curve (AUC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic value. In addition, heterogeneity and subgroup analysis were also carried out. A total of 13 studies with a total of 894 patients and 1384 assessable stents were included. The pooled results of DSCTA diagnosing CISR were as follows: SEN 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–0.96), SPE 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.94), PLR 9.83 (95% CI 6.93–13.94), NLR 0.09 (95% CI 0.05–0.15), DOR 114.73 (95% CI 64.12–205.28), and AUC 0.97 (95% CI 0.95–0.98), respectively. The subgroup analysis result suggested that DSTCA performed significantly better in CISR detection when the stent diameter was ≥3 mm compared with the stent diameter <3 mm: (0.98 [0.97–0.99] vs 0.82 [0.79–0.86]) with P < .05. This study revealed that DSCTA has excellent diagnostic performance for detecting CISR and may serve as an alternative for further patient evaluation with CISR, especially for stent diameter ≥3 mm.     

Exploring diagnostic and prognostic predictive values of microRNAs for acute myocardial infarction: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:Previous investigations yielded inconsistent results for diagnostic and prognostic predictive values of MicroRNAs (miRNAs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Methods and results:We systematically searched on PubMed and Web of Science for articles explored association of miRNAs and AMI published from January 1989 to March 2019. For diagnostic studies, a summary of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), which indicated the accuracy of microRNAs in the differentiation of AMI and no AMI, were calculated from the true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP), and false negative (FN) of each study. In addition, the summary receive-operating characteristics (SROC) curve was constructed to summarize the TP and FP rates. For follow-up study, we computed hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual clinical outcomes. The meta-analysis showed a sensitivity [0.72 (95% CI: 0.61--0.81)] and specificity [0.88 (95% CI: 0.79--0.94)] of miR-1 for AMI. In addition, miR-133 showed a sensitivity [0.73 (95% CI: 0.55--0.85)] and specificity [0.88 (95% CI: 0.74--0.95)] for AMI. Moreover, the present study showed a sensitivity [0.83 (95% CI: 0.74--0.89)] and specificity [0.96 (95% CI: 0.82--0.99)] of miR-208 for AMI. A significant association was found between miR-208 and mortality after AMI (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01--1.18). It also indicated a sensitivity [0.84 (95% CI: 0.70--0.92)] and specificity [0.97 (95% CI: 0.87--0.99)] of miR-499 for AMI.Conclusions:Circulating miR-1, miR-133, miR-208, and miR-499 showed diagnostic values in AMI.     

Diagnostic value of serum anti-C1q antibodies in patients with lupus nephritis: a meta-analysis

The autoantibodies against C1q (anti-C1q) have been reported in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In the past decade, though there were increasing studies suggesting it is relatively specific in lupus nephritis (LN), its overall diagnostic value in LN has not been evaluated. The meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of autoantibodies against C1q in patients with LN, and to provide more precise evidence of a correlation between anti-C1q antibodies and activity of LN. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases and contacted authors if necessary. A total of 25 studies including 2,502 patients with SLE and 1,317 with LN met our inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. Among all 25 studies, 22 studies were available for comparison between SLE with and without LN, and 9 studies compared anti-C1q between patients with active and inactive LN. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was used to summarize comprehensive test performance. The QUADAS tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. For the diagnosis of LN, the pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of anti-C1q were 0.58 (0.56-0.61, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]), 0.75 (0.72-0.77, 95% CI), 2.60 (2.06-3.28, 95% CI), 0.51 (0.41-0.63, 95% CI), and 6.08 (3.91-9.47, 95% CI) respectively. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.7941. For comparison between active and inactive LN, the weighted sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.74 (0.68-0.79, 95% CI), 0.77 (0.71-0.82, 95% CI), 2.91 (1.83-4.65, 95% CI), 0.33 (0.19-0.56, 95% CI), and 10.56 (4.56-24.46, 95% CI) respectively. The AUC was 0.8378. In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicates that anti-C1q antibodies have relatively fair sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of LN, suggesting that the presence of anti-C1q antibodies may be a valuable adjunct for predicting LN and assessing renal activity.     

Regular arrangement of collecting venules under endoscopy for predicting a Helicobacter pylori-negative stomach: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aimsThe regular arrangement of collecting venules (RAC) refers to the appearance of multiple regular tiny veins in the body of the stomach and is considered to be very effective for identifying gastric mucosa with non-Helicobacter pylori infection. This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the value of the sign in predicting a Helicobacter pylori-negative stomach and the relevant factors that may affect the performance of this prediction.MethodsTwo biomedical databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were systematically searched through April 20, 2020. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the SROC curve (AUC) were calculated.ResultsFourteen articles with 4070 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for the RAC in predicting non-Hp infection were 0.80 (0.67–0.89), 0.97 (0.93–0.98), 24.8 (12.2–50.8), 0.21 (0.12–0.36), 120 (47–301) and 0.97 (0.19–1.00), respectively.ConclusionsThe RAC is a valuable endoscopic feature for the prediction of patients without Hp infection.     

Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis

Background: There is still a debate on which imaging method is the best to diagnose cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Accordingly, this study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) on the detection of CSP based on current evidence in the literature.Methods:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Chinese Biomedical Documentation Service System, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched up to June 2020. The included studies were all comparisons of MRI and US in the diagnosis of CSP that adopted postoperative histological examination as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for MRI and US.Results:Thirteen studies were included, with a total sample size of 948 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC of MRI in diagnosing CSP were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89), 5.46 (95% CI, 3.70-8.05), 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97), respectively; for US they were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81), 3.06 (95% CI, 2.22-4.21), 0.23 (95% CI, 0.18-0.28), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively.Conclusion:We found that both MRI and US effectively diagnosed CSP; however, MRI had a higher diagnostic performance in detecting CSP than US.     

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review

Objective

To summarize EUS-FNA test performance in suspected pancreatic malignancy with meta-analysis.

Method

Two reviewers searched MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid from January 2002 to January 2012) database to identify relevant studies. The reference lists of the trials were manually searched. Included studies used histopathology or clinical and morphological (CT and MRI and US) follow-up as the “gold standard” and provided sufficient data to construct a diagnostic 2?×?2 table. A statistical program of Meta-Disc was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, and the SROC curve. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were calculated to evaluate potential sources of heterogeneity.

Result

A total of 15 studies with 1860 patients were included for the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA were 92?% (95?% CI?=?91–93?%, p?I ²?=?69.6?%) and 96?% (95?% CI?=?93–98?%, p?=?0.006, I ²?=?54.9?%), respectively. The positive LR and negative LR were 14.24 (95?% CI?=?7.78–26.07) and 0.09 (95?% CI?=?0.07–0.13), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.974. The subgroup analysis of six studies with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) showed a pooled sensitivity of 95 % (95?% CI?=?93–96?%), with p value equal 0.622 and I ²?=?0. The sensitivity analysis of ten high-quality studies (a score of ≥4) showed a pooled sensitivity of 94?% (95?% CI?=?93–96?%, p?=?0.144, I ²?=?33.1?%), and the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95?% CI, 0.91–0.97).

Conclusion

EUS-FNA had overall excellent specificity and sensitivity in accurately diagnosing solid pancreatic masses. ROSE could help to improve the accuracy of diagnostic test.     

Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA-based cytology distinguishing malignant and benign IPMNs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesDifferential diagnosis of malignant and benign intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) is essential to determine the optimal treatment. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is currently used to diagnose pancreatic cystic lesions worldwide, but few studies have focused on the diagnostic yield to distinguish malignant and benign IPMNs. Therefore, we aim to systematically review the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA-based cytology to distinguish malignant and benign IPMNs.MethodsRelevant studies with a reference standard of definitive surgical histology which published between 2002 and 2012 were identified via MEDLINE and SCOPUS. Malignant IPMNs included invasive adenocarcinoma, carcinoma in situ, and high-grade dysplasia.ResultsFour studies with 96 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA-based cytology distinguishing malignant and benign IPMNs, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 64.8% (95% CI, 0.44–0.82) and 90.6% (95% CI, 0.81–0.96), respectively. Similarly, the positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 6.35 (95% CI, 2.95–13.68) and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.14–1.34), respectively. Malignant IPMNs were observed in 20.8% (20/96) of patients in EUS-FNA studies.ConclusionsEUS-FNA-based cytology has good specificity but poor sensitivity in differentiating benign from malignant IPMNs. Newer techniques or markers are needed to improve diagnostic yield.     

Telomerase activity in pancreatic juice differentiates pancreatic cancer from chronic pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

Background/objectiveTo evaluate the usefulness of genetic markers in pancreatic juice (PJ), and the combination of these markers with telomerase activity in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from chronic pancreatitis.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis for the diagnostic utility of the four major altered genes in PDAC (KRAS, CDKN2A/p16, TP53, and SMAD4/DPC4), telomerase activity, and a combination assay using PJ samples. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Data were pooled and presented as diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThirty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates of KRAS analysis were as follows: sensitivity was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63–0.71) and specificity, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85). For telomerase activity analysis, sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76–0.87) and specificity, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90–0.99). The other three tumor suppressors demonstrated low sensitivity. The data did not suggest any publication bias. A combined analysis of KRAS and telomerase activity showed a higher diagnostic sensitivity (0.94; 95% CI, 0.83–0.99) than KRAS alone. A combined analysis of telomerase activity and cytology revealed more reliable diagnostic accuracy than telomerase activity alone, with high sensitivity (0.88; 95% CI, 0.74–0.96) and specificity (1.00; 95% CI, 0.91–1.00).ConclusionsThe most reliable marker in PJ samples for diagnosis of PDAC was telomerase activity. Telomerase activity can play a central role in diagnostic analysis using PJ samples, and can increase diagnostic accuracy when combined with KRAS mutations or cytological examination.     

MRI versus CT for the detection of pulmonary nodules: A meta-analysis

Background:Computed tomography (CT) is the current gold standard for the detection of pulmonary nodules but has high radiation burden. In contrast, many radiologists tried to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to replace CT because MRI has no radiation burden associated. Due to the lack of high-level evidence of comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus CT for detecting pulmonary nodules, it is unknown whether CT can be replaced successfully by MRI. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus CT for detecting pulmonary nodules.Methods:Electronic databases PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from their inception to September 2017 to identify studies in which CT/MRI was used to diagnose pulmonary nodules. According to true positive, true negative, false negative, and false positive extracted from the included studies, we calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the curve (AUC) using Stata version 14.0 software (STATA Corp, TX).Results:A total of 8 studies involving a total of 653 individuals were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80–0.96), 0.76 (95%CI: 0.58–0.87), 3.72 (95%CI: 2.05–6.76), 0.12 (95%CI: 0.06–0.27), and 0.91 (95%CI: 0.88–0.93) for MRI respectively, while the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC for CT were 1.00 (95%CI: 0.95–1.00), 0.99 (95%CI: 0.78–1.00), 79.35 (95%CI: 3.68–1711.06), 0.00 (95%CI: 0.00–0.06), and 1.00 (95%CI: 0.99–1.00), respectively. Further, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of CT versus MRI and found that compared with MRI, CT shows statistically higher sensitivity (odds ratio [OR] for MRI vs CT: 0.91; 95%CI: 0.85–0.98; P value .010), specificity (OR: 0.82; 95%CI: 0.69–0.97; P value .019), PLR (OR: 0.29; 95%CI: 0.10–0.83; P value 0.02), AUC (OR: 0.91; 95%CI: 0.89–0.94; P value < .001), and lower NLR (OR: 8.72; 95%CI: 1.57–48.56; P value .013).Conclusion:Our study suggested both CT and MRI have a high diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing pulmonary nodules, while CT was superior to MRI in sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC, indicating that in terms of the currently available evidence, MRI could not replace CT in diagnosing pulmonary nodules.     

Elevated serum CA 19-9 in hepatic actinomycosis

Abstract

Objective. It is controversial whether endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is beneficial in all patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to assess diagnostic yield, safety and impact of EUS-FNA on management of patients with solid pancreatic mass. Material and methods. Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic mass were enrolled. Gold standard for final diagnosis included histology from surgical resection. In patients without surgery, clinical evaluation methods and repeated imaging studies were used for the comparison of initial cytology and final diagnosis. Patients were followed-up prospectively focusing on subsequent treatment. Results. Among 207 enrolled patients, final diagnosis was malignant in 163 (78.6%) and benign in 44 (21.4%). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA in diagnosing pancreatic cancer were 92.6% (95% CI: 87.20–95.96), 88.6% (95% CI: 74.64–95.64) and 91.8% (95% CI: 87.24–94.81), respectively. No major and five (2.4%) minor complications occurred. Of 151 true-positive patients by EUS-FNA, 57 (37.7%) were surgically explored, of whom 28 (49.1%) underwent resection. Ten of 12 patients with false-negative cytology were explored based on detection of mass on EUS, of whom two had a delay due to false-negative cytology without curative treatment. From the whole study cohort, EUS-FNA had positive and negative impacts on subsequent management in 136 (65.7%) and 2 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Conclusions. EUS-FNA provides accurate diagnosis in 92% and has positive therapeutic impact in two-thirds of patients with solid pancreatic mass. Despite negative cytology, surgical exploration is recommended in clinical suspicion for pancreatic cancer and solid mass on EUS.     

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: A meta-analysis

Background and objectivesMucinous cystic neoplasms and intraductal papillary mucinous tumours have greater malignant potential than serous cystic neoplasms. EUS alone is inadequate for characterising these lesions but the addition of FNA may significantly improve diagnostic accuracy. The performance of EUS-FNA is highly variable in published studies.AimTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA to differentiate mucinous versus non-mucinous cystic lesions with cyst fluid analysis for cytology and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) by performing a meta-analysis of published studies.MethodsRelevant studies were identified via structured database search and included if they used a reference standard of definitive surgical histology or clinical follow-up of at least 6 months. Data from selected studies were pooled to give summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Pre-defined subgroup analysis was performed.ResultsEighteen studies (published 2002–2011) were included, with a total of 1438 patients. For cytology, pooled sensitivity was 54(95%CI 49–59)% and specificity 93(90–95)%. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 13.3 (4.37–49.43), with I² of 77.1%. For CEA sensitivity was 63(59–67)% and specificity 88(83–91)%. The DOR was 10.76(6.29–18.41) with an I² of 25.4%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA was enhanced in prospective studies and studies of <36 months duration. No impact of publication bias on our results was demonstrated.ConclusionsFine-needle aspiration has moderate sensitivity but high specificity for mucinous lesions. EUS-FNA, when used in conjunction with cross sectional imaging, is a useful diagnostic tool for the correct identification of mucinous cysts.     

Staining for p53 and Ki-67 increases the sensitivity of EUS-FNA to detect pancreatic malignancy

AIM: To investigate whether tumor marker staining can improve the sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to diagnose pancreatic malignancy.METHODS: Patients who underwent EUS-FNA were retrospectively identified. Each EUS-FNA specimen was evaluated by routine cytology and stained for tumor markers p53, Ki-67, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA19-9. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR) were calculated in order to evaluate the performance of each test to detect malignancy.RESULTS: Sixty-one specimens had complete sets of stains, yielding 49 and 12 specimens from pancreatic adenocarcinomas and benign pancreatic lesions due to pancreatitis, respectively. Cytology alone had sensitivity and specificity of 41% and 100% to detect malignancy, respectively. In 46% of the specimens, routine cytology alone was deemed indeterminate. The addition of either p53 or Ki-67 increased the sensitivity to 51% and 53%, respectively, with perfect specificity, PPV and PLR (100%, 100% and infinite). Both stains in combination increased the sensitivity to 57%. While additional staining with CEA and CA19-9 further increased the sensitivity to 86%, the specificity, PPV and PLR were significantly reduced (at minimum 42%, 84% and 1, respectively). Markers in all combinations performed poorly as a negative test (NPV 26% to 47%, and NLR 0.27 and 0.70).CONCLUSION: Immunohistochemical staining for p53 and Ki-67 can improve the sensitivity of EUS-FNA to diagnose pancreatic adenocarcinoma.     

Hypocalcemia is associated with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aimsHypocalcemia is commonly in critically ill patients and studies have shown that hypocalcemia is prevalent in patients with COVID-19. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic performance of hypocalcemia in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search on PubMed, Scopus, and Embase with keywords “SARS-CoV-2″ OR″COVID-19″ OR ″2019-nCoV” AND “hypocalcemia” up until 10 December 2020. The key exposure was hypocalcemia, defined as serum calcium below study-defined cut-off points. The main outcome was poor outcome, which was a composite of mortality and severity. The effect estimate of the main outcome was reported as odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We also generate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR & NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under curve (AUC).ResultsThere are 2032 patients from 7 studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The incidence of poor outcome in this study was 26%. Serum calcium was lower in patients with poor outcome (mean difference ?0.173 mmol/L [-0.259, ?0.087], p < 0.001; I²: 31.3%). Hypocalcemia was associated with poor outcome (OR 3.19 [2.02, 5.06], p < 0.001; I²: 32.86%); with sensitivity of 0.74 [0.53, 0.88], specificity of 0.54 [0.29, 0.77], PLR of 1.6 [1.1, 2.3], NLR of 0.49 [0.35, 0.66], DOR of 3 [2, 5], and AUC of 0.70 [0.66, 0.74]. In this pooled analysis, the post-test probability was 36% in patients with hypocalcemia and 15% in patients without hypocalcemia.ConclusionHypocalcemia was associated with poor outcome in COVID-19 patients.PROSPERO ID: CRD42020225506.     

Diagnostic value of EUS elastography in differentiation of benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis

Background/AimsEUS elastography is a novel technique that can be used for distinguishing benign from malignant lymph nodes and focal pancreatic masses. However, the studies pertaining to EUS elastography for differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses have reported widely varied sensitivities and specificities. A meta-analysis of all relevant articles was performed to estimate the overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS elastography for differentiating benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses.MethodsThe literatures were identified by searching in PubMed and Embase databases. Two reviewers independently extracted the information from the literatures for constructing 2 × 2 table. A random-effect model or a fixed-effect model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) also was constructed. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity.Results13 studies including a total of 1042 patients with solid pancreatic masses were selected for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS elastography for differentiating benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%–96%), 69% (95% CI, 63%–75%), respectively. The area under SROC (AUC) was 0.8695. Two significant variables were associated with heterogeneity: color pattern and blinding.ConclusionAs a less invasive modality, EUS elastography is a promising method for differentiating benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses with a high sensitivity, and it can prove to be a valuable supplement to EUS-FNA.