Display options
Share it on

Cancer Control. 2021 Jan-Dec;28:10732748211059858. doi: 10.1177/10732748211059858.

Stereotactic Biopsy for Brainstem Lesions: A Meta-analysis with Noncomparative Binary Data.

Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Lin He, Dongjie He, Yuhong Qi, Jiejing Zhou, Canliang Yuan, Hao Chang, Qiming Wang, Gaiyan Li, Qiuju Shao

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiotherapy, Tangdu Hospital, 56697Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.

PMID: 34875878 PMCID: PMC8670786 DOI: 10.1177/10732748211059858

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of brainstem stereotactic biopsy for brainstem lesions.

METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of English articles retrieved from the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and APA psycInfo databases up to May 12, 2021. A binary fixed-effect model, the inverse variance method, or a binary random-effect model, the Dersimonian Laird method, were utilized for pooling the data. This meta-analysis was registered with INPLASY, INPLASY202190034.

FINDINGS: A total of 41 eligible studies with 2792 participants were included. The weighted average diagnostic yield was 97.0% (95% confidential interval [CI], 96.0-97.9%). The weighted average proportions of temporary complications, permanent deficits, and deaths were 6.2% (95% CI, 4.5-7.9%), .5% (95% CI, .2-.8%), and .3% (95% CI, .1-.5%), respectively. The subgroup analysis indicated a nearly identical weighted average diagnostic yield between MRI-guided stereotactic biopsy and CT-guided stereotactic biopsy (95.9% vs 95.8%) but slightly increased proportions of temporary complications (7.9% vs 6.0%), permanent deficits (1.9% vs .2%), and deaths (1.1% vs .4%) in the former compared to the latter. Moreover, a greater weighted average diagnostic yield (99.2% vs 97.6%) and lower proportions of temporary complications (5.1% vs 6.8%) and deaths (.7% vs 1.5%) were shown in the pediatric patient population than in the adult patient population.

CONCLUSIONS: Brainstem stereotactic biopsy demonstrates striking accuracy plus satisfying safety in the diagnosis of brainstem lesions. The diagnostic yield, morbidity, and mortality mildly vary based on the diversity of assistant techniques and subject populations.

Keywords: brainstem lesion; diagnostic yield; meta-analysis; safety; stereotactic biopsy

References

  1. Neurosurgery. 1993 Dec;33(6):1026-9; discussion 1029-30 - PubMed
  2. Childs Nerv Syst. 1999 May;15(5):235-7; discussion 238 - PubMed
  3. J Neurosurg. 2005 Mar;102(3):565-70 - PubMed
  4. J Robot Surg. 2019 Aug;13(4):575-579 - PubMed
  5. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015 Jan;62(1):163-5 - PubMed
  6. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2019 May;80(3):149-161 - PubMed
  7. J Neurosurg. 2007 Nov;107(5 Suppl):392-9 - PubMed
  8. Neurocirugia (Astur : Engl Ed). 2019 Jul - Aug;30(4):167-172 - PubMed
  9. Surg Neurol. 2006 Nov;66(5):484-90; discussion 491 - PubMed
  10. Neurosurgery. 1985 Jul;17(1):12-8 - PubMed
  11. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012 Feb;38(1):27-35 - PubMed
  12. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Feb;99(8):e18572 - PubMed
  13. Childs Nerv Syst. 2003 Jun;19(5-6):305-10 - PubMed
  14. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012;:629-33 - PubMed
  15. Appl Neurophysiol. 1985;48(1-6):467-71 - PubMed
  16. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2020 Dec 25;:1-8 - PubMed
  17. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100 - PubMed
  18. Neurosurg Rev. 2021 Jun;44(3):1721-1727 - PubMed
  19. Neoplasma. 2017;64(6):901-908 - PubMed
  20. Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 6;10(1):11065 - PubMed
  21. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011 Dec;8(6):539-43 - PubMed
  22. J Neurooncol. 2016 Sep;129(2):243-50 - PubMed
  23. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2012;90(2):79-83 - PubMed
  24. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2010;88(6):360-6 - PubMed
  25. JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396 - PubMed
  26. Neurochirurgie. 2010 Oct;56(5):363-7 - PubMed
  27. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2014 Jan;5(1):32-9 - PubMed
  28. Surg Neurol. 1995 Jun;43(6):558-62 - PubMed
  29. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 Jul;163(7):1957-1964 - PubMed
  30. Interv Neuroradiol. 1999 Mar 30;5(1):19-25 - PubMed
  31. Neuro Oncol. 2012 Mar;14(3):381-5 - PubMed
  32. Neuro Oncol. 2018 Oct 9;20(11):1547-1555 - PubMed
  33. Neurosurgery. 2008 Sep;63(3):460-6; discussion 466-8 - PubMed
  34. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 Jul 3;: - PubMed
  35. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019 Oct;161(10):2065-2071 - PubMed
  36. Br J Neurosurg. 2008 Aug;22(4):599-601 - PubMed
  37. World Neurosurg. 2020 Apr;136:e380-e385 - PubMed
  38. Neurosurgery. 1978 May-Jun;2(3):217-22 - PubMed
  39. Nat Genet. 2014 May;46(5):451-6 - PubMed
  40. J Clin Neurosci. 2018 Jan;47:311-314 - PubMed
  41. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009 Oct;80(10):1134-9 - PubMed
  42. J Neurosurg. 1989 Feb;70(2):195-200 - PubMed
  43. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien). 1988;42:182-6 - PubMed
  44. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2005 Jan;147(1):47-9; discussion 49-50 - PubMed
  45. Surg Neurol. 1987 Aug;28(2):100-4 - PubMed
  46. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1992;59(1-4):111-4 - PubMed
  47. Surg Neurol. 1995 Jun;43(6):563-7; discussion 567-8 - PubMed
  48. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017 Sep;20(3):261-268 - PubMed
  49. Childs Nerv Syst. 2020 May;36(5):933-939 - PubMed
  50. Neurosurgery. 2013 Jun;72(6):873-81; discussion 882; quiz 882 - PubMed
  51. J Neurosurg. 1986 Aug;65(2):172-6 - PubMed
  52. J Neurosurg. 2006 Feb;104(2 Suppl):108-14 - PubMed
  53. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien). 1988;42:170-6 - PubMed
  54. Childs Nerv Syst. 2015 Oct;31(10):1773-80 - PubMed
  55. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1998;140(9):899-903 - PubMed
  56. Chin Med J (Engl). 1998 Apr;111(4):361-3 - PubMed
  57. Surg Neurol. 2003 Oct;60(4):311-20; discussion 320 - PubMed

Publication Types