Diagnostic value of ultrasound elastography in triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis
The purpose of this study was to determine the value of ultrasound elastic imaging (UE) in the differential diagnosis of the 3 negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from inception to July 20, 2022 and used STATA version 14.0 and Meta-...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medicine (Baltimore) 2023-02, Vol.102 (6), p.e32879-e32879 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e32879 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | e32879 |
| container_title | Medicine (Baltimore) |
| container_volume | 102 |
| creator | Wang, Fei Wang, Hongjiang |
| description | The purpose of this study was to determine the value of ultrasound elastic imaging (UE) in the differential diagnosis of the 3 negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC.
We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from inception to July 20, 2022 and used STATA version 14.0 and Meta-Disc version 1.4 software. We computed summary statistics for sensitivity (Sen), specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+/LR-), diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Cochran Q-statistic and I2 test were used to assess potential heterogeneity between studies. Sen analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of a single study on overall estimation. We also conducted a meta regression analysis to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity.
Nine studies that fulfilled all the criteria for acceptance were incorporated into the meta-analysis. TNBC 317 and non-TNBC 1055 cases were evaluated. All breast tumors were histologically confirmed. The pooled Sen was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-0.90); the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95%CI = 0.78-0.91). The pooled LR+ was 5.46 (95%CI = 3.07-9.73); the pooled negative LR- was 0.26 (95%CI = 0.12-0.55). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio of UE was 21.00 (95% CI = 6.14-71.78). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 (SE = 0.0378). No evidence was found to reveal bias (t = 0.10, P = .92).
Our meta-analysis showed that UE could have high diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing TNBC and non-TNBC. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1097/MD.0000000000032879 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9907922</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2779348776</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4006-f768af841bd6720ef51bf5cf3adb0dd7ab2d0bad60b6f0f1de149e59477441d23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU1vFDEMhiMEokvhFyChHLlMcT4m2XBAqrrQIrXiAkcUZSbObiA7WZKZrfbfM2VL-fDFkv34ta2XkJcMzhgY_eZmdQZ_QvClNo_IgrVCNa1R8jFZAPC20UbLE_Ks1m8ATGgun5IToZYcWq0W5OsquvWQ6xh7undpQpoDndJYXM3T4CkmV8e8Lm63OdA40LHEXUI64NqNcY-0KzgDtHdDj-UtPadbHF3jBpcONdbn5ElwqeKL-3xKvnx4__niqrn-dPnx4vy66SWAaoJWSxeWknVeaQ4YWtaFtg_C-Q68167jHjrnFXQqQGAemTTYGqm1lMxzcUreHXV3U7dF3-MwP5DsrsStKwebXbT_doa4seu8t8aANvxO4PW9QMk_Jqyj3cbaY0puwDxVy7U2Qi61VjMqjmhfcq0Fw8MaBvbOGHuzsv8bM0-9-vvCh5nfTsyAPAK3OY1Y6vc03WKxG3Rp3PzSa-dLGw5cAGcAzVyRSvwEkwabOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2779348776</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic value of ultrasound elastography in triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wolters Kluwer Open Health</source><source>IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wang, Fei ; Wang, Hongjiang</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Fei ; Wang, Hongjiang</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to determine the value of ultrasound elastic imaging (UE) in the differential diagnosis of the 3 negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC.
We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from inception to July 20, 2022 and used STATA version 14.0 and Meta-Disc version 1.4 software. We computed summary statistics for sensitivity (Sen), specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+/LR-), diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Cochran Q-statistic and I2 test were used to assess potential heterogeneity between studies. Sen analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of a single study on overall estimation. We also conducted a meta regression analysis to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity.
Nine studies that fulfilled all the criteria for acceptance were incorporated into the meta-analysis. TNBC 317 and non-TNBC 1055 cases were evaluated. All breast tumors were histologically confirmed. The pooled Sen was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-0.90); the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95%CI = 0.78-0.91). The pooled LR+ was 5.46 (95%CI = 3.07-9.73); the pooled negative LR- was 0.26 (95%CI = 0.12-0.55). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio of UE was 21.00 (95% CI = 6.14-71.78). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 (SE = 0.0378). No evidence was found to reveal bias (t = 0.10, P = .92).
Our meta-analysis showed that UE could have high diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing TNBC and non-TNBC.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-7974</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-5964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032879</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36820576</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</publisher><subject>Diagnosis, Differential ; Elasticity Imaging Techniques ; Humans ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Ultrasonography</subject><ispartof>Medicine (Baltimore), 2023-02, Vol.102 (6), p.e32879-e32879</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4006-f768af841bd6720ef51bf5cf3adb0dd7ab2d0bad60b6f0f1de149e59477441d23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5878-5889</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9907922/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9907922/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36820576$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Hongjiang</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic value of ultrasound elastography in triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis</title><title>Medicine (Baltimore)</title><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study was to determine the value of ultrasound elastic imaging (UE) in the differential diagnosis of the 3 negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC.
We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from inception to July 20, 2022 and used STATA version 14.0 and Meta-Disc version 1.4 software. We computed summary statistics for sensitivity (Sen), specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+/LR-), diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Cochran Q-statistic and I2 test were used to assess potential heterogeneity between studies. Sen analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of a single study on overall estimation. We also conducted a meta regression analysis to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity.
Nine studies that fulfilled all the criteria for acceptance were incorporated into the meta-analysis. TNBC 317 and non-TNBC 1055 cases were evaluated. All breast tumors were histologically confirmed. The pooled Sen was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-0.90); the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95%CI = 0.78-0.91). The pooled LR+ was 5.46 (95%CI = 3.07-9.73); the pooled negative LR- was 0.26 (95%CI = 0.12-0.55). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio of UE was 21.00 (95% CI = 6.14-71.78). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 (SE = 0.0378). No evidence was found to reveal bias (t = 0.10, P = .92).
Our meta-analysis showed that UE could have high diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing TNBC and non-TNBC.</description><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Elasticity Imaging Techniques</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</subject><subject>Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><issn>0025-7974</issn><issn>1536-5964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU1vFDEMhiMEokvhFyChHLlMcT4m2XBAqrrQIrXiAkcUZSbObiA7WZKZrfbfM2VL-fDFkv34ta2XkJcMzhgY_eZmdQZ_QvClNo_IgrVCNa1R8jFZAPC20UbLE_Ks1m8ATGgun5IToZYcWq0W5OsquvWQ6xh7undpQpoDndJYXM3T4CkmV8e8Lm63OdA40LHEXUI64NqNcY-0KzgDtHdDj-UtPadbHF3jBpcONdbn5ElwqeKL-3xKvnx4__niqrn-dPnx4vy66SWAaoJWSxeWknVeaQ4YWtaFtg_C-Q68167jHjrnFXQqQGAemTTYGqm1lMxzcUreHXV3U7dF3-MwP5DsrsStKwebXbT_doa4seu8t8aANvxO4PW9QMk_Jqyj3cbaY0puwDxVy7U2Qi61VjMqjmhfcq0Fw8MaBvbOGHuzsv8bM0-9-vvCh5nfTsyAPAK3OY1Y6vc03WKxG3Rp3PzSa-dLGw5cAGcAzVyRSvwEkwabOQ</recordid><startdate>20230210</startdate><enddate>20230210</enddate><creator>Wang, Fei</creator><creator>Wang, Hongjiang</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</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>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5878-5889</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230210</creationdate><title>Diagnostic value of ultrasound elastography in triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis</title><author>Wang, Fei ; Wang, Hongjiang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4006-f768af841bd6720ef51bf5cf3adb0dd7ab2d0bad60b6f0f1de149e59477441d23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Elasticity Imaging Techniques</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</topic><topic>Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Hongjiang</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Fei</au><au>Wang, Hongjiang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic value of ultrasound elastography in triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><date>2023-02-10</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e32879</spage><epage>e32879</epage><pages>e32879-e32879</pages><issn>0025-7974</issn><eissn>1536-5964</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to determine the value of ultrasound elastic imaging (UE) in the differential diagnosis of the 3 negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC.
We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from inception to July 20, 2022 and used STATA version 14.0 and Meta-Disc version 1.4 software. We computed summary statistics for sensitivity (Sen), specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+/LR-), diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Cochran Q-statistic and I2 test were used to assess potential heterogeneity between studies. Sen analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of a single study on overall estimation. We also conducted a meta regression analysis to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity.
Nine studies that fulfilled all the criteria for acceptance were incorporated into the meta-analysis. TNBC 317 and non-TNBC 1055 cases were evaluated. All breast tumors were histologically confirmed. The pooled Sen was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-0.90); the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95%CI = 0.78-0.91). The pooled LR+ was 5.46 (95%CI = 3.07-9.73); the pooled negative LR- was 0.26 (95%CI = 0.12-0.55). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio of UE was 21.00 (95% CI = 6.14-71.78). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 (SE = 0.0378). No evidence was found to reveal bias (t = 0.10, P = .92).
Our meta-analysis showed that UE could have high diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing TNBC and non-TNBC.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</pub><pmid>36820576</pmid><doi>10.1097/MD.0000000000032879</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5878-5889</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0025-7974 |
| ispartof | Medicine (Baltimore), 2023-02, Vol.102 (6), p.e32879-e32879 |
| issn | 0025-7974 1536-5964 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9907922 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wolters Kluwer Open Health; IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Diagnosis, Differential Elasticity Imaging Techniques Humans ROC Curve Sensitivity and Specificity Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Ultrasonography |
| title | Diagnostic value of ultrasound elastography in triple negative breast 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=2024-12-29T00%3A47%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20value%20of%20ultrasound%20elastography%20in%20triple%20negative%20breast%20cancer:%20A%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Medicine%20(Baltimore)&rft.au=Wang,%20Fei&rft.date=2023-02-10&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e32879&rft.epage=e32879&rft.pages=e32879-e32879&rft.issn=0025-7974&rft.eissn=1536-5964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/MD.0000000000032879&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2779348776%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2779348776&rft_id=info:pmid/36820576&rfr_iscdi=true |