Loading…

Network Meta-analysis for the Diagnostic Approach to Pathologic Nipple Discharge

Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is one of the most common breast-related complaints for referral because of its supposed association with breast cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, mammogram, cytology, magnetic resonance imaging...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical breast cancer 2020-12, Vol.20 (6), p.e723-e748
Main Authors: Filipe, Mando D., Patuleia, Susanna I.S., de Jong, Valentijn M.T., Vriens, Menno R., van Diest, Paul J., Witkamp, Arjen J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-aa6eb8cfda14ca373454a41254c1dfddf0bebc9ece3db96ef38c2ad57876bb343
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-aa6eb8cfda14ca373454a41254c1dfddf0bebc9ece3db96ef38c2ad57876bb343
container_end_page e748
container_issue 6
container_start_page e723
container_title Clinical breast cancer
container_volume 20
creator Filipe, Mando D.
Patuleia, Susanna I.S.
de Jong, Valentijn M.T.
Vriens, Menno R.
van Diest, Paul J.
Witkamp, Arjen J.
description Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is one of the most common breast-related complaints for referral because of its supposed association with breast cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, mammogram, cytology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ductoscopy in patients with PND, as well as to determine the best diagnostic strategy to assess the risk of malignancy as cause for PND. Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched to collect relevant literature from the inception of each of the diagnostic methods until January 27, 2020. The search yielded 1472 original citations, of which 36 studies with 3764 patients were finally included for analysis. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed using an NMA approach to evaluate the combined odd ratios and to determine the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for the detection of breast cancer in patients with PND. Additionally, a subgroup meta-analysis comparing ductoscopy to MRI when conventional imaging was negative was also performed. According to this NMA, sensitivity for detection of malignancy in patients with PND was highest for MRI (83%), followed by ductoscopy (58%), ultrasound (50%), cytology (38%), and mammogram (22%). Specificity was highest for mammogram (93%) followed by ductoscopy (92%), cytology (90%), MRI (76%), and ultrasound (69%). Diagnostic accuracy was the highest for ductoscopy (88%), followed by cytology (82%), MRI (77%), mammogram (76%), and ultrasound (65%). Subgroup meta-analysis (comparing ductoscopy to MRI when ultrasound and mammogram were negative) showed no significant difference in sensitivity, but ductoscopy was statistically significantly better with regard to specificity and diagnostic accuracy. The results from this NMA indicate that although ultrasound and mammogram may remain low-cost useful first choices for the detection of malignancy in patients with PND, ductoscopy outperforms most imaging techniques (especially MRI) and cytology.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.05.015
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2424101359</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1526820920301439</els_id><sourcerecordid>2424101359</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-aa6eb8cfda14ca373454a41254c1dfddf0bebc9ece3db96ef38c2ad57876bb343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMlOwzAQhi0EomwvwAHlyCXBexOJC2KXWHqAs-XYk9YlrYPtgnh7XBU4cprR6JtfMx9CxwRXBBN5Nq9M35qKYoorLCpMxBbaIw2rSyyl3M69oLKsKW5GaD_GOcZUMoJ30YhRKQVpyB6aPEH69OGteISkS73U_Vd0seh8KNIMiiunp0sfkzPFxTAEr82sSL6Y6DTzvZ_m8ZMbhn4NRjPTYQqHaKfTfYSjn3qAXm-uXy7vyofn2_vLi4fScIxTqbWEtjad1YQbzcaMC645oYIbYjtrO9xCaxowwGzbSOhYbai2YlyPZdsyzg7Q6SY3X_W-gpjUIp8Afa-X4FdRUU55tsREk1G6QU3wMQbo1BDcQocvRbBam1RztTap1iYVFiqbzEsnP_mrdgH2b-VXXQbONwDkLz8cBBWNg6UB6wKYpKx3_-V_A2v7hbM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2424101359</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Network Meta-analysis for the Diagnostic Approach to Pathologic Nipple Discharge</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Filipe, Mando D. ; Patuleia, Susanna I.S. ; de Jong, Valentijn M.T. ; Vriens, Menno R. ; van Diest, Paul J. ; Witkamp, Arjen J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Filipe, Mando D. ; Patuleia, Susanna I.S. ; de Jong, Valentijn M.T. ; Vriens, Menno R. ; van Diest, Paul J. ; Witkamp, Arjen J.</creatorcontrib><description>Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is one of the most common breast-related complaints for referral because of its supposed association with breast cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, mammogram, cytology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ductoscopy in patients with PND, as well as to determine the best diagnostic strategy to assess the risk of malignancy as cause for PND. Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched to collect relevant literature from the inception of each of the diagnostic methods until January 27, 2020. The search yielded 1472 original citations, of which 36 studies with 3764 patients were finally included for analysis. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed using an NMA approach to evaluate the combined odd ratios and to determine the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for the detection of breast cancer in patients with PND. Additionally, a subgroup meta-analysis comparing ductoscopy to MRI when conventional imaging was negative was also performed. According to this NMA, sensitivity for detection of malignancy in patients with PND was highest for MRI (83%), followed by ductoscopy (58%), ultrasound (50%), cytology (38%), and mammogram (22%). Specificity was highest for mammogram (93%) followed by ductoscopy (92%), cytology (90%), MRI (76%), and ultrasound (69%). Diagnostic accuracy was the highest for ductoscopy (88%), followed by cytology (82%), MRI (77%), mammogram (76%), and ultrasound (65%). Subgroup meta-analysis (comparing ductoscopy to MRI when ultrasound and mammogram were negative) showed no significant difference in sensitivity, but ductoscopy was statistically significantly better with regard to specificity and diagnostic accuracy. The results from this NMA indicate that although ultrasound and mammogram may remain low-cost useful first choices for the detection of malignancy in patients with PND, ductoscopy outperforms most imaging techniques (especially MRI) and cytology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-8209</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-0666</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.05.015</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32665191</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Cytology ; Diagnosis ; Ductoscopy ; Mammography ; MRI ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Clinical breast cancer, 2020-12, Vol.20 (6), p.e723-e748</ispartof><rights>2020 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-aa6eb8cfda14ca373454a41254c1dfddf0bebc9ece3db96ef38c2ad57876bb343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-aa6eb8cfda14ca373454a41254c1dfddf0bebc9ece3db96ef38c2ad57876bb343</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32665191$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Filipe, Mando D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patuleia, Susanna I.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Valentijn M.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vriens, Menno R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Diest, Paul J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Witkamp, Arjen J.</creatorcontrib><title>Network Meta-analysis for the Diagnostic Approach to Pathologic Nipple Discharge</title><title>Clinical breast cancer</title><addtitle>Clin Breast Cancer</addtitle><description>Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is one of the most common breast-related complaints for referral because of its supposed association with breast cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, mammogram, cytology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ductoscopy in patients with PND, as well as to determine the best diagnostic strategy to assess the risk of malignancy as cause for PND. Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched to collect relevant literature from the inception of each of the diagnostic methods until January 27, 2020. The search yielded 1472 original citations, of which 36 studies with 3764 patients were finally included for analysis. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed using an NMA approach to evaluate the combined odd ratios and to determine the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for the detection of breast cancer in patients with PND. Additionally, a subgroup meta-analysis comparing ductoscopy to MRI when conventional imaging was negative was also performed. According to this NMA, sensitivity for detection of malignancy in patients with PND was highest for MRI (83%), followed by ductoscopy (58%), ultrasound (50%), cytology (38%), and mammogram (22%). Specificity was highest for mammogram (93%) followed by ductoscopy (92%), cytology (90%), MRI (76%), and ultrasound (69%). Diagnostic accuracy was the highest for ductoscopy (88%), followed by cytology (82%), MRI (77%), mammogram (76%), and ultrasound (65%). Subgroup meta-analysis (comparing ductoscopy to MRI when ultrasound and mammogram were negative) showed no significant difference in sensitivity, but ductoscopy was statistically significantly better with regard to specificity and diagnostic accuracy. The results from this NMA indicate that although ultrasound and mammogram may remain low-cost useful first choices for the detection of malignancy in patients with PND, ductoscopy outperforms most imaging techniques (especially MRI) and cytology.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Cytology</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Ductoscopy</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1526-8209</issn><issn>1938-0666</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMlOwzAQhi0EomwvwAHlyCXBexOJC2KXWHqAs-XYk9YlrYPtgnh7XBU4cprR6JtfMx9CxwRXBBN5Nq9M35qKYoorLCpMxBbaIw2rSyyl3M69oLKsKW5GaD_GOcZUMoJ30YhRKQVpyB6aPEH69OGteISkS73U_Vd0seh8KNIMiiunp0sfkzPFxTAEr82sSL6Y6DTzvZ_m8ZMbhn4NRjPTYQqHaKfTfYSjn3qAXm-uXy7vyofn2_vLi4fScIxTqbWEtjad1YQbzcaMC645oYIbYjtrO9xCaxowwGzbSOhYbai2YlyPZdsyzg7Q6SY3X_W-gpjUIp8Afa-X4FdRUU55tsREk1G6QU3wMQbo1BDcQocvRbBam1RztTap1iYVFiqbzEsnP_mrdgH2b-VXXQbONwDkLz8cBBWNg6UB6wKYpKx3_-V_A2v7hbM</recordid><startdate>202012</startdate><enddate>202012</enddate><creator>Filipe, Mando D.</creator><creator>Patuleia, Susanna I.S.</creator><creator>de Jong, Valentijn M.T.</creator><creator>Vriens, Menno R.</creator><creator>van Diest, Paul J.</creator><creator>Witkamp, Arjen J.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202012</creationdate><title>Network Meta-analysis for the Diagnostic Approach to Pathologic Nipple Discharge</title><author>Filipe, Mando D. ; Patuleia, Susanna I.S. ; de Jong, Valentijn M.T. ; Vriens, Menno R. ; van Diest, Paul J. ; Witkamp, Arjen J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-aa6eb8cfda14ca373454a41254c1dfddf0bebc9ece3db96ef38c2ad57876bb343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Cytology</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Ductoscopy</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Filipe, Mando D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patuleia, Susanna I.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Valentijn M.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vriens, Menno R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Diest, Paul J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Witkamp, Arjen J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical breast cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Filipe, Mando D.</au><au>Patuleia, Susanna I.S.</au><au>de Jong, Valentijn M.T.</au><au>Vriens, Menno R.</au><au>van Diest, Paul J.</au><au>Witkamp, Arjen J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Network Meta-analysis for the Diagnostic Approach to Pathologic Nipple Discharge</atitle><jtitle>Clinical breast cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Breast Cancer</addtitle><date>2020-12</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e723</spage><epage>e748</epage><pages>e723-e748</pages><issn>1526-8209</issn><eissn>1938-0666</eissn><abstract>Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is one of the most common breast-related complaints for referral because of its supposed association with breast cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, mammogram, cytology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ductoscopy in patients with PND, as well as to determine the best diagnostic strategy to assess the risk of malignancy as cause for PND. Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched to collect relevant literature from the inception of each of the diagnostic methods until January 27, 2020. The search yielded 1472 original citations, of which 36 studies with 3764 patients were finally included for analysis. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed using an NMA approach to evaluate the combined odd ratios and to determine the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for the detection of breast cancer in patients with PND. Additionally, a subgroup meta-analysis comparing ductoscopy to MRI when conventional imaging was negative was also performed. According to this NMA, sensitivity for detection of malignancy in patients with PND was highest for MRI (83%), followed by ductoscopy (58%), ultrasound (50%), cytology (38%), and mammogram (22%). Specificity was highest for mammogram (93%) followed by ductoscopy (92%), cytology (90%), MRI (76%), and ultrasound (69%). Diagnostic accuracy was the highest for ductoscopy (88%), followed by cytology (82%), MRI (77%), mammogram (76%), and ultrasound (65%). Subgroup meta-analysis (comparing ductoscopy to MRI when ultrasound and mammogram were negative) showed no significant difference in sensitivity, but ductoscopy was statistically significantly better with regard to specificity and diagnostic accuracy. The results from this NMA indicate that although ultrasound and mammogram may remain low-cost useful first choices for the detection of malignancy in patients with PND, ductoscopy outperforms most imaging techniques (especially MRI) and cytology.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>32665191</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.clbc.2020.05.015</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1526-8209
ispartof Clinical breast cancer, 2020-12, Vol.20 (6), p.e723-e748
issn 1526-8209
1938-0666
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2424101359
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Breast cancer
Cytology
Diagnosis
Ductoscopy
Mammography
MRI
Ultrasound
title Network Meta-analysis for the Diagnostic Approach to Pathologic Nipple Discharge
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T14%3A29%3A17IST&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=Network%20Meta-analysis%20for%20the%20Diagnostic%20Approach%20to%20Pathologic%20Nipple%20Discharge&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20breast%20cancer&rft.au=Filipe,%20Mando%20D.&rft.date=2020-12&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e723&rft.epage=e748&rft.pages=e723-e748&rft.issn=1526-8209&rft.eissn=1938-0666&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.clbc.2020.05.015&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2424101359%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-aa6eb8cfda14ca373454a41254c1dfddf0bebc9ece3db96ef38c2ad57876bb343%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2424101359&rft_id=info:pmid/32665191&rfr_iscdi=true