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