Diagnostic value of fine-needle aspiration biopsy for breast mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of the breast is a minimally invasive yet maximally diagnostic method. However, the clinical use of FNAB has been questioned. The purpose of our study was to establish the overall value of FNAC in the diagnosis of breast lesions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After a review and quality assessment of 46 studies, sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of FNAB for evaluating breast lesions were pooled using random-effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall accuracy. The sensitivity and specificity for the studies data (included unsatisfactory samples) and underestimation rate of unsatisfactory samples were also calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The summary estimates for FNAB in diagnosis of breast carcinoma were as follows (unsatisfactory samples was temporarily exluded): sensitivity, 0.927 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.921 to 0.933); specificity, 0.948 (95% CI, 0.943 to 0.952); positive likelihood ratio, 25.72 (95% CI, 17.35 to 28.13); negative likelihood ratio, 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.11); diagnostic odds ratio, 429.73 (95% CI, 241.75 to 763.87); The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 11 studies, which reported unsatisfactory samples (unsatisfactory samples was considered to be positive in this classification) were 0.920 (95% CI, 0.906 to 0.933) and 0.768 (95% CI, 0.751 to 0.784) respectively. The pooled proportion of unsatisfactory samples that were subsequently upgraded to various grade cancers was 27.5% (95% CI, 0.221 to 0.296).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>FNAB is an accurate biopsy for evaluating breast malignancy if rigorous criteria are used. With regard to unsatisfactory samples, futher invasive procedures are required in order to minimize the chance of a missed diagnosis of breast cancer.</p

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration

The REMARK “elaboration and explanation” guideline, by Doug Altman and colleagues, provides a detailed reference for authors on important issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker prognostic studies

ESGE and ESGENA Position Statement on gastrointestinal endoscopy and the COVID-19 pandemic

We are currently living in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic that imposes a significant stress on health care providers and facilities. Europe is severely affected with an exponential increase in incident infections and deaths. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 can be subtle, encompassing a broad spectrum from asymptomatic mild disease to severe respiratory illness. Health care professionals in endoscopy units are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Infection prevention and control has been shown to be dramatically effective in assuring the safety of both health care professionals and patients. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (www.esge.com) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (www.esgena.org) are joining forces to provide guidance during this pandemic to help assure the highest level of endoscopy care and protection against COVID-19 for both patients and endoscopy unit personnel. This guidance is based upon the best available evidence regarding assessment of risk during the current status of the pandemic and a consensus on which procedures to perform and the priorities on resumption. We appreciate the gaps in knowledge and evidence, especially on the proper strategy(ies) for the resumption of normal endoscopy practice during the upcoming phases and end of the pandemic and therefore a list of potential research questions is presented. New evidence may result in an updated statement. © 2020 Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart New York

International multicenter tool to predict the risk of four or more tumor-positive axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients with sentinel node macrometastases

Recently, many centers have omitted routine axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after metastatic sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer due to a growing body of literature. However, existing guidelines of adjuvant treatment planning are strongly based on axillary nodal stage. In this study, we aim to develop a novel international multicenter predictive tool to estimate a patient-specific risk of having four or more tumor-positive axillary lymph nodes (ALN) in patients with macrometastatic sentinel node(s) (SN). A series of 675 patients with macrometastatic SN and completion ALND from five European centers were analyzed by logistic regression analysis. A multivariate predictive model was created and validated internally by 367 additional patients and then externally by 760 additional patients from eight different centers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Prevalence of four or more tumor-positive ALN in each center's series (P = 0.010), number of metastatic SNs (P < 0.0001), number of negative SNs (P = 0.003), histological size of the primary tumor (P = 0.020), and extra-capsular extension of SN metastasis (P < 0.0001) were included in the predictive model. The model's area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.766 in the internal validation and 0.774 in external validation. Our novel international multicenter-based predictive tool reliably estimates the risk of four or more axillary metastases after identifying macrometastatic SN(s) in breast cancer. Our tool performs well in internal and external validation, but needs to be further validated in each center before application to clinical use

International Multicenter Tool to Predict the Risk of Nonsentinel Node Metastases in Breast Cancer.

BackgroundAxillary treatment of breast cancer patients is undergoing a paradigm shift, as completion axillary lymph node dissections (ALNDs) are being questioned in the treatment of patients with tumor-positive sentinel nodes. This study aims to develop a novel multi-institutional predictive tool to calculate patient-specific risk of residual axillary disease after tumor-positive sentinel node biopsy.MethodsBreast cancer patients with a tumor-positive sentinel node and a completion ALND from five European centers formed the original patient series (N = 1000). Statistically significant variables predicting nonsentinel node involvement were identified in logistic regression analysis. A multivariable predictive model was developed and validated by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), first internally in 500 additional patients and then externally in 1068 patients from other centers. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsNine tumor- and sentinel node-specific variables were identified as statistically significant factors predicting nonsentinel node involvement in logistic regression analysis. A resulting predictive model applied to the internal validation series resulted in an AUC of 0.714 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.665 to 0.763). For the external validation series, the AUC was 0.719 (95% CI = 0.689 to 0.750). The model was well calibrated in the external validation series.ConclusionsWe present a novel, international, multicenter, predictive tool to assess the risk of additional axillary metastases after tumor-positive sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer. The predictive model performed well in internal and external validation but needs to be further studied in each center before application to clinical use

Publisher Correction: Clinical evolution, genetic landscape and trajectories of clonal hematopoiesis in SAMD9/SAMD9L syndromes (Nature Medicine, (2021), 27, 10, (1806-1817), 10.1038/s41591-021-01511-6)

In the version of this Article initially published, there were errors in Fig. 1. Specifically, in the top right box in Fig. 1a, the text now reading “n = 25” mistakenly read “125” in the original publication. Further, in the four graphs of Fig. 1e, the colored labels “Wild-type,” “SAMD9/9Lmut” and “GATA2mut” were misaligned to the n and P values at their right. These errors have been corrected in the online version of the article