Diagnostic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Background The possible application and validity of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in gastric cancer (GC) is still debated. A systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic value of SLN biopsy (SLNB) in GC is urgently needed. Methods A systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of surgical oncology 2012-05, Vol.19 (5), p.1541-1550 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1550 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1541 |
| container_title | Annals of surgical oncology |
| container_volume | 19 |
| creator | Wang, Zhen Dong, Zhi-Yong Chen, Jun-Qiang Liu, Jin-Lu |
| description | Background
The possible application and validity of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in gastric cancer (GC) is still debated. A systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic value of SLN biopsy (SLNB) in GC is urgently needed.
Methods
A systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. A random-effect model was used to pool the data, and subgroup analysis was used to explain the heterogeneities.
Results
A total of 38 included studies (2,128 patients) were included. The pooled SLN identification rate, sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 93.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 91.1–95.6%), 76.9% (95% CI: 71.6–81.4%), 90.3% (95% CI: 86.9–92.9%), and 92.0% (95% CI: 89.9–93.7%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that early T stage, combined tracers, submucosal injection method, conventional open surgery, and usage of immunohistochemistry were associated with higher SLN identification rate and sensitivity.
Conclusions
SLNB in GC is technically feasible with an acceptable sensitivity. However, further studies are needed to confirm the best procedure and standard criteria. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1245/s10434-011-2124-2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1009540611</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2660378021</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-45e4b33ef9dbde61f8c2610be8261f118427506b8df0f4e31712766a2a4996453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwA7igSFy4FOIkTVtuY8BAGiDEx7VKW3d06tqStIf-ezJ1IITEyZb9-E30EHIM7By49C8sMCmkxwA87gYe3yFj8N1EqhB2Xc9U6EVc-SNyYO2KMQgE8_fJiHMmQyX4mDxfF3pZ1bYtUvquyw5pndMXrNqiwpIu-nXzQR_rDOlVUTe2p0VF59q2xuEzXaVoLumUPmCrvWmly94W9pDs5bq0eLStE_J2e_M6u_MWT_P72XThpVKErSd9lIkQmEdZkqGCPEy5ApZg6EoOEEoe-EwlYZazXKKAAHiglOZaRpGSvpiQsyG3MfVnh7aN14VNsSx1hXVnY2As8iVTAA49_YOu6s64_24oEFJxyZijYKBSU1trMI8bU6y16R0Ub3zHg-_Y-Y43vmPubk62yV2yxuzn4luwA_gAWLeqlmh-P_1f6hdYZ4dp</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1013462400</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><creator>Wang, Zhen ; Dong, Zhi-Yong ; Chen, Jun-Qiang ; Liu, Jin-Lu</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Zhen ; Dong, Zhi-Yong ; Chen, Jun-Qiang ; Liu, Jin-Lu</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The possible application and validity of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in gastric cancer (GC) is still debated. A systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic value of SLN biopsy (SLNB) in GC is urgently needed.
Methods
A systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. A random-effect model was used to pool the data, and subgroup analysis was used to explain the heterogeneities.
Results
A total of 38 included studies (2,128 patients) were included. The pooled SLN identification rate, sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 93.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 91.1–95.6%), 76.9% (95% CI: 71.6–81.4%), 90.3% (95% CI: 86.9–92.9%), and 92.0% (95% CI: 89.9–93.7%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that early T stage, combined tracers, submucosal injection method, conventional open surgery, and usage of immunohistochemistry were associated with higher SLN identification rate and sensitivity.
Conclusions
SLNB in GC is technically feasible with an acceptable sensitivity. However, further studies are needed to confirm the best procedure and standard criteria.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1068-9265</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1534-4681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-2124-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22048632</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Confidence Intervals ; Feasibility Studies ; Gastrointestinal Oncology ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes - pathology ; Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neoplasm Staging ; Oncology ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy - standards ; Stomach Neoplasms - pathology ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology</subject><ispartof>Annals of surgical oncology, 2012-05, Vol.19 (5), p.1541-1550</ispartof><rights>Society of Surgical Oncology 2011</rights><rights>Society of Surgical Oncology 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-45e4b33ef9dbde61f8c2610be8261f118427506b8df0f4e31712766a2a4996453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-45e4b33ef9dbde61f8c2610be8261f118427506b8df0f4e31712766a2a4996453</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-011-2124-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1245/s10434-011-2124-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22048632$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Zhen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dong, Zhi-Yong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Jun-Qiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Jin-Lu</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis</title><title>Annals of surgical oncology</title><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><description>Background
The possible application and validity of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in gastric cancer (GC) is still debated. A systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic value of SLN biopsy (SLNB) in GC is urgently needed.
Methods
A systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. A random-effect model was used to pool the data, and subgroup analysis was used to explain the heterogeneities.
Results
A total of 38 included studies (2,128 patients) were included. The pooled SLN identification rate, sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 93.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 91.1–95.6%), 76.9% (95% CI: 71.6–81.4%), 90.3% (95% CI: 86.9–92.9%), and 92.0% (95% CI: 89.9–93.7%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that early T stage, combined tracers, submucosal injection method, conventional open surgery, and usage of immunohistochemistry were associated with higher SLN identification rate and sensitivity.
Conclusions
SLNB in GC is technically feasible with an acceptable sensitivity. However, further studies are needed to confirm the best procedure and standard criteria.</description><subject>Confidence Intervals</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal Oncology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lymph Nodes - pathology</subject><subject>Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy - standards</subject><subject>Stomach Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><issn>1068-9265</issn><issn>1534-4681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwA7igSFy4FOIkTVtuY8BAGiDEx7VKW3d06tqStIf-ezJ1IITEyZb9-E30EHIM7By49C8sMCmkxwA87gYe3yFj8N1EqhB2Xc9U6EVc-SNyYO2KMQgE8_fJiHMmQyX4mDxfF3pZ1bYtUvquyw5pndMXrNqiwpIu-nXzQR_rDOlVUTe2p0VF59q2xuEzXaVoLumUPmCrvWmly94W9pDs5bq0eLStE_J2e_M6u_MWT_P72XThpVKErSd9lIkQmEdZkqGCPEy5ApZg6EoOEEoe-EwlYZazXKKAAHiglOZaRpGSvpiQsyG3MfVnh7aN14VNsSx1hXVnY2As8iVTAA49_YOu6s64_24oEFJxyZijYKBSU1trMI8bU6y16R0Ub3zHg-_Y-Y43vmPubk62yV2yxuzn4luwA_gAWLeqlmh-P_1f6hdYZ4dp</recordid><startdate>20120501</startdate><enddate>20120501</enddate><creator>Wang, Zhen</creator><creator>Dong, Zhi-Yong</creator><creator>Chen, Jun-Qiang</creator><creator>Liu, Jin-Lu</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120501</creationdate><title>Diagnostic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis</title><author>Wang, Zhen ; Dong, Zhi-Yong ; Chen, Jun-Qiang ; Liu, Jin-Lu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-45e4b33ef9dbde61f8c2610be8261f118427506b8df0f4e31712766a2a4996453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Confidence Intervals</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal Oncology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lymph Nodes - pathology</topic><topic>Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy - standards</topic><topic>Stomach Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Zhen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dong, Zhi-Yong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Jun-Qiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Jin-Lu</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Zhen</au><au>Dong, Zhi-Yong</au><au>Chen, Jun-Qiang</au><au>Liu, Jin-Lu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle><stitle>Ann Surg Oncol</stitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><date>2012-05-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1541</spage><epage>1550</epage><pages>1541-1550</pages><issn>1068-9265</issn><eissn>1534-4681</eissn><abstract>Background
The possible application and validity of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in gastric cancer (GC) is still debated. A systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic value of SLN biopsy (SLNB) in GC is urgently needed.
Methods
A systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. A random-effect model was used to pool the data, and subgroup analysis was used to explain the heterogeneities.
Results
A total of 38 included studies (2,128 patients) were included. The pooled SLN identification rate, sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 93.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 91.1–95.6%), 76.9% (95% CI: 71.6–81.4%), 90.3% (95% CI: 86.9–92.9%), and 92.0% (95% CI: 89.9–93.7%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that early T stage, combined tracers, submucosal injection method, conventional open surgery, and usage of immunohistochemistry were associated with higher SLN identification rate and sensitivity.
Conclusions
SLNB in GC is technically feasible with an acceptable sensitivity. However, further studies are needed to confirm the best procedure and standard criteria.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>22048632</pmid><doi>10.1245/s10434-011-2124-2</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1068-9265 |
| ispartof | Annals of surgical oncology, 2012-05, Vol.19 (5), p.1541-1550 |
| issn | 1068-9265 1534-4681 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1009540611 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink (Online service) |
| subjects | Confidence Intervals Feasibility Studies Gastrointestinal Oncology Humans Lymph Nodes - pathology Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neoplasm Staging Oncology Predictive Value of Tests Reproducibility of Results Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy - standards Stomach Neoplasms - pathology Surgery Surgical Oncology |
| title | Diagnostic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T05%3A58%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20Value%20of%20Sentinel%20Lymph%20Node%20Biopsy%20in%20Gastric%20Cancer:%20A%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20surgical%20oncology&rft.au=Wang,%20Zhen&rft.date=2012-05-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1541&rft.epage=1550&rft.pages=1541-1550&rft.issn=1068-9265&rft.eissn=1534-4681&rft_id=info:doi/10.1245/s10434-011-2124-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2660378021%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1013462400&rft_id=info:pmid/22048632&rfr_iscdi=true |