The Role of Core Needle Biopsy Pathology Combined with Molecular Tests in the Diagnosis of Lymph Node Tuberculosis.
CNB
CapitalBio assay
Xpert
accuracy
lymph node tuberculosis
molecular tests
pathology
tissue
Journal
Infection and drug resistance
ISSN: 1178-6973
Titre abrégé: Infect Drug Resist
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101550216
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
21
11
2021
accepted:
14
01
2022
entrez:
10
2
2022
pubmed:
11
2
2022
medline:
11
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Early lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB) diagnosis is still difficult. The majority of LN specimens require the undertaking of invasive and unpleasant procedures. To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of pathology when combined with molecular tests for the diagnosis of LNTB in core needle biopsy (CNB) specimens and to compare that diagnostic efficacy with that deriving from tissue specimens' examination alone. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of LNTB patients who met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test (positive result for either of these two assays) were calculated to evaluate their diagnostic efficacy compared with a composite reference standard. A total of 289 patients were included in the study. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC of pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test were 94.5%, 97.2%, 99.6%, 71.4%, 0.96; 73.1%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 34.6%, 0.87; and 98.4%, 97.2%, 99.6%, 89.7%, 0.98, respectively. For CNB specimens, these values for pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test were 93.3%, 96.2%, 99.4%, 69.4%, 0.95; 76.4%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 40.0%, 0.88; and 99.4%, 96.2%, 99.4%,96.2%,0.98, while those same values for the tissue were 96.6%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 76.9%, 0.98; 67.1%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 25.6%, 0.84; and 96.6%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 76.9%,0.98, respectively. The validity of pathology and molecular testing when using CNB specimens was similar to that of tissue specimens for relevant assessment approaches. For the LNTB diagnosis, CNB specimens were preferred for the simultaneous undertaking of pathological examination and molecular testing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Early lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB) diagnosis is still difficult. The majority of LN specimens require the undertaking of invasive and unpleasant procedures.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of pathology when combined with molecular tests for the diagnosis of LNTB in core needle biopsy (CNB) specimens and to compare that diagnostic efficacy with that deriving from tissue specimens' examination alone.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of LNTB patients who met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test (positive result for either of these two assays) were calculated to evaluate their diagnostic efficacy compared with a composite reference standard.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 289 patients were included in the study. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC of pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test were 94.5%, 97.2%, 99.6%, 71.4%, 0.96; 73.1%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 34.6%, 0.87; and 98.4%, 97.2%, 99.6%, 89.7%, 0.98, respectively. For CNB specimens, these values for pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test were 93.3%, 96.2%, 99.4%, 69.4%, 0.95; 76.4%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 40.0%, 0.88; and 99.4%, 96.2%, 99.4%,96.2%,0.98, while those same values for the tissue were 96.6%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 76.9%, 0.98; 67.1%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 25.6%, 0.84; and 96.6%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 76.9%,0.98, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The validity of pathology and molecular testing when using CNB specimens was similar to that of tissue specimens for relevant assessment approaches. For the LNTB diagnosis, CNB specimens were preferred for the simultaneous undertaking of pathological examination and molecular testing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35140479
doi: 10.2147/IDR.S350570
pii: 350570
pmc: PMC8818765
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
335-345Informations de copyright
© 2022 Shen et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016 Dec;133(6):401-404
pubmed: 27592165
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 27;8:CD012768
pubmed: 30148542
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 15;1:CD012768
pubmed: 33448348
Br J Biomed Sci. 2016;73(1):28-31
pubmed: 27182674
Int J Mycobacteriol. 2019 Apr-Jun;8(2):132-137
pubmed: 31210154
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 26;13(6):e0199290
pubmed: 29944682
J Infect. 2009 Jul;59(1):56-61
pubmed: 19535147
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 6;12(12):e0188704
pubmed: 29211755
Trop Doct. 2015 Oct;45(4):221-4
pubmed: 25999355
J Microbiol Methods. 2021 Jan;180:106124
pubmed: 33321144
Eur Respir J. 2014 Aug;44(2):435-46
pubmed: 24696113
Head Neck. 2015 Feb;37(2):229-33
pubmed: 24375555
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Mar;15(3):375-8
pubmed: 21333106
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Sep;53(6):555-62
pubmed: 21865192
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;98:1-5
pubmed: 32553719
Biomed Res Int. 2019 May 19;2019:4878240
pubmed: 31236407
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jun 5;17(1):390
pubmed: 28583076
Diagn Cytopathol. 2019 Oct;47(10):1011-1017
pubmed: 31207176
Sante. 2011 Jul-Sep;21(3):165-8
pubmed: 22294252
Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2019;20(12):1044-1054
pubmed: 31333119
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Mar;104:92-96
pubmed: 33352329
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 22;14(8):e0221427
pubmed: 31437232
Braz J Biol. 2021 Aug 20;83:e244311
pubmed: 34431905
J Microbiol Methods. 2020 Jan;168:105780
pubmed: 31751598
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 May;40(5):969-977
pubmed: 33242168
Trop Doct. 2011 Jan;41(1):26-7
pubmed: 20940291
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2019 Sep - Oct;85(5):617-622
pubmed: 30017875
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 27;8:CD013359
pubmed: 32853411
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 28;10(1):7102
pubmed: 32345991
Int J Infect Dis. 2017 Jan;54:4-7
pubmed: 27810522