scholarly journals ASO Authors Reflection: Diagnostic Accuracy of Nipple Discharge Fluid Cytology: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

Author(s):  
Natasha Jiwa ◽  
Daniel Leff
Author(s):  
Natasha Jiwa ◽  
Swathica Kumar ◽  
Rishikesh Gandhewar ◽  
Hemali Chauhan ◽  
Vikneswaran Nagarajan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Nipple discharge is the third most frequent complaint of women attending rapid diagnostic breast clinics. Nipple smear cytology remains the single most used diagnostic method for investigating fluid content. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of nipple discharge fluid assessment. Methods The study incorporated searches for studies interrogating the diagnostic data of nipple discharge fluid cytology compared with the histopathology gold standard. Data from studies published from 1956 to 2019 were analyzed. The analysis included 8648 cytology samples of women with a presenting complaint of nipple discharge. Both hierarchical and bivariate models for diagnostic meta-analysis were used to attain overall pooled sensitivity and specificity. Results Of 837 studies retrieved, 45 fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The diagnostic accuracy of the meta-analysis examining nipple discharge fluid had a sensitivity of 75 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.74–0.77) and a specificity of 87 % (95 % CI, 0.86–0.87) for benign breast disease. For breast cancer, it had a sensitivity of 62 % (95 % CI, 0.53–0.71) and a specificity 71 % (95 % CI, 0.57–0.81). Furthermore, patients presenting with blood-stained discharge yielded an overall malignancy rate of 58 % (95 % CI, 0.54–0.60) with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 27 % (95 % CI, 0.17–0.36). Conclusions Pooled data from studies encompassing nipple discharge fluid assessment suggest that nipple smear cytology is of limited diagnostic accuracy. The authors recommend that a tailored approach to diagnosis be required given the variable sensitivities of currently available tests.


2016 ◽  
Vol 103 (6) ◽  
pp. 632-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Waaijer ◽  
J. M. Simons ◽  
I. H. M. Borel Rinkes ◽  
P. J. van Diest ◽  
H. M. Verkooijen ◽  
...  

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Granieri ◽  
Francesco Sessa ◽  
Alessandro Bonomi ◽  
Sissi Paleino ◽  
Federica Bruno ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Entero-colovesical fistula is a rare complication of various benign and malignant diseases. The diagnosis is prominently based on clinical symptoms; imaging studies are necessary not only to confirm the presence of the fistula, but more importantly to demonstrate the extent and the nature of the fistula. There is still a lack of consensus regarding the if, when and how to repair the fistula. The aim of the study is to review the different surgical treatment options, focus on surgical indications, and explore cumulative recurrence, morbidity, and mortality rates of entero-vesical and colo-vesical fistula patients. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Random effects meta-analyses of proportions were developed to assess primary and secondary endpoints. I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q test were computed to assess inter-studies’ heterogeneity. Results Twenty-two studies were included in the analysis with a total of 861 patients. Meta-analyses of proportions pointed out 5, 22.2, and 4.9% rates for recurrence, complications, and mortality respectively. A single-stage procedure was performed in 75.5% of the cases, whereas a multi-stage operation in 15.5% of patients. Palliative surgery was performed in 6.2% of the cases. In 2.3% of the cases, the surgical procedure was not specified. Simple and advanced repair of the bladder was performed in 84.3% and 15.6% of the cases respectively. Conclusions Although burdened by a non-negligible rate of complications, surgical repair of entero-colovesical fistula leads to excellent results in terms of primary healing. Our review offers opportunities for significant further research in this field. Level of Evidence Level III according to ELIS (SR/MA with up to two negative criteria).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document