4.4 Review

Diagnostic accuracy of CT in assessing extra-regional lymphadenopathy in pancreatic and peri-ampullary cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 229-235

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2014.10.005

关键词

Computed tomography; Diagnostic accuracy; Lymphadenopathy; Lymph node metastases; Pancreatic cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Computed tomography (CT) is the most widely used method to assess resectability of pancreatic and peri-ampullary cancer. One of the contra-indications for curative resection is the presence of extra-regional lymph node metastases. This meta-analysis investigates the accuracy of CT in assessing extra-regional lymph node metastases in pancreatic and peri-ampullary cancer. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on CT assessment of extra-regional lymph nodes in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Data on baseline characteristics, CT-investigations and histopathological outcomes were extracted. Diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity were calculated for individual studies and pooled data. Results: After screening, 4 cohort studies reporting on CT-findings and histopathological outcome in 157 patients with pancreatic or peri-ampullary cancer were included. Overall, diagnostic accuracy, specificity and NPV varied from 63 to 81, 80-100% and 67-90% respectively. However, PPV and sensitivity ranged from 0 to 100% and 0-38%. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 25%, 86%, 28% and 84% respectively. Conclusions: CT has a low diagnostic accuracy in assessing extra-regional lymph node metastases in pancreatic and peri-ampullary cancer. Therefore, suspicion of extra-regional lymph node metastases on CT alone should not be considered a contra-indication for exploration. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据