Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of optical coherence tomography and frozen section for margin assessment in breast-conserving surgery: a meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 PATHOLOGY Journal of Clinical Pathology Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1136/jcp-2024-209597
Shishun Fan, Huirui Zhang, Zhenyu Meng, Ang Li, Yuqing Luo, Yueping Liu
{"title":"Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of optical coherence tomography and frozen section for margin assessment in breast-conserving surgery: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Shishun Fan, Huirui Zhang, Zhenyu Meng, Ang Li, Yuqing Luo, Yueping Liu","doi":"10.1136/jcp-2024-209597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This meta-analysis assessed the relative diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus frozen section (FS) in evaluating surgical margins during breast-conserving procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant studies published up to October 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of OCT or FS in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Sensitivity and specificity were analysed using the DerSimonian and Laird method and subsequently transformed through the Freeman-Tukey double inverse sine method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis encompassed 36 articles, comprising 16 studies on OCT and 20 on FS, involving 10 289 specimens from 8058 patients. The overall sensitivity of OCT was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.96), surpassing that of FS, which was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.92), indicating a significantly higher sensitivity for OCT (p=0.04). Conversely, the overall specificity of OCT was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83 to 0.94), while FS exhibited a higher specificity at 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99), suggesting a superior specificity for FS (p<0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-analysis reveals that OCT offers superior sensitivity but inferior specificity compared with FS in assessing surgical margins in breast-conserving surgery patients. Further larger well-designed prospective studies are needed, especially those employing a head-to-head comparison design.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023483751.</p>","PeriodicalId":15391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp-2024-209597","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This meta-analysis assessed the relative diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus frozen section (FS) in evaluating surgical margins during breast-conserving procedures.

Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant studies published up to October 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of OCT or FS in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Sensitivity and specificity were analysed using the DerSimonian and Laird method and subsequently transformed through the Freeman-Tukey double inverse sine method.

Results: The meta-analysis encompassed 36 articles, comprising 16 studies on OCT and 20 on FS, involving 10 289 specimens from 8058 patients. The overall sensitivity of OCT was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.96), surpassing that of FS, which was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.92), indicating a significantly higher sensitivity for OCT (p=0.04). Conversely, the overall specificity of OCT was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83 to 0.94), while FS exhibited a higher specificity at 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99), suggesting a superior specificity for FS (p<0.01).

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis reveals that OCT offers superior sensitivity but inferior specificity compared with FS in assessing surgical margins in breast-conserving surgery patients. Further larger well-designed prospective studies are needed, especially those employing a head-to-head comparison design.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023483751.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较光学相干断层扫描和冷冻切片在保乳手术边缘评估中的诊断效果:一项荟萃分析。
目的:这项荟萃分析评估了光学相干断层扫描(OCT)与冷冻切片(FS)在保乳手术中评估手术切缘的相对诊断准确性:方法:检索了PubMed和Embase上截至2023年10月发表的相关研究。纳入标准包括评估 OCT 或 FS 对接受保乳手术患者诊断准确性的研究。敏感性和特异性采用 DerSimonian 和 Laird 方法进行分析,随后通过 Freeman-Tukey 双反正弦法进行转换:荟萃分析包括36篇文章,其中16篇是关于OCT的研究,20篇是关于FS的研究,涉及8058名患者的10 289个标本。OCT 的总体灵敏度为 0.93(95% CI:0.90 至 0.96),高于 FS 的 0.82(95% CI:0.71 至 0.92),表明 OCT 的灵敏度明显更高(P=0.04)。相反,OCT的总体特异性为0.89(95% CI:0.83至0.94),而FS的特异性更高,为0.97(95% CI:0.95至0.99),表明FS的特异性更高(P<0.01):我们的荟萃分析表明,与 FS 相比,OCT 在评估保乳手术患者的手术切缘方面具有更高的灵敏度,但特异性较低。需要进一步开展更大规模、设计良好的前瞻性研究,尤其是采用头对头比较设计的研究:CRD42023483751。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
113
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Pathology is a leading international journal covering all aspects of pathology. Diagnostic and research areas covered include histopathology, virology, haematology, microbiology, cytopathology, chemical pathology, molecular pathology, forensic pathology, dermatopathology, neuropathology and immunopathology. Each issue contains Reviews, Original articles, Short reports, Correspondence and more.
期刊最新文献
Emerging fusion-associated mesenchymal tumours: a tabular guide and appraisal of five 'novel' entities. Extraction and classification of structured data from unstructured hepatobiliary pathology reports using large language models: a feasibility study compared with rules-based natural language processing. Prognostic implications of the immunohistochemical expression of perilipin 1 and adipophilin in high-grade liposarcoma. Seasonal variation of serum potassium and related prescription pattern: an ecological time series. Calculated LDL-cholesterol: comparability of the extended Martin/Hopkins, Sampson/NIH, Friedewald and four other equations in South African patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1