The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

Author:

Jamal Fatima E.1,Vey Johannes A.2,Proctor Tanja2,Ishak Angela13,Schmitt Fernando C.456,Nikas Ilias P.17

Affiliation:

1. School of Medicine, European University Cyprus

2. Institute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

3. Department of Internal Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI

4. IPATIMUP, Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of University of Porto

5. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto

6. CINTESIS@RISE, Health Research Network, Porto, Portugal

7. Medical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Abstract

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of The International System (TIS) for reporting serous fluid cytopathology. Our aims were to present the pooled malignancy rate of each TIS reporting category and the diagnostic accuracy of cytology using this system. Database search using a predefined strategy was followed by study selection, data extraction, study quality assessment, and statistical analysis. Data derived from 16 eligible studies were pooled. The pooled rates of malignancy were as follows: 27% (95% CI; 16%-41%) for “nondiagnostic” (ND), 11% (95% CI; 7%-18%) for negative for malignancy” (NFM), 49% (95% CI; 37%-61%) for “atypia of undetermined significance” (AUS), 90% (95% CI; 81%-95%) for “suspicious for malignancy” (SFM), and 100% (95% CI; 98%-100%) for “positive for malignancy” (MAL). Studies performed exclusively in cancer hospitals showed higher pooled malignancy rates, compared with academic and community hospitals serving the general population, in the ND [40% (95% CI; 21%-62%) vs. 22% (95% CI; 11%-39%)], NFM [20% (95% CI; 13%-30%) vs. 9% (95% CI; 5%-17%)], and AUS categories [55% (95% CI; 47%-63%) vs. 46% (95% CI; 31%-62%)]. Notably, the difference was significant in the NFM category (P=0.04). When both SFM and MAL cytology interpretations were considered as malignant outcomes, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 68.74% (95% CI; 59.90%-76.39%) and 98.81% (95% CI; 98.18%-99.22%), respectively. In addition, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was found to be 170.7 (95% CI; 96.2-303.3). Despite its strengths, our study also had some limitations. Therefore, future large-scale longitudinal studies could strengthen the findings of this review.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3