Search

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.

BackgroundIntraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) and whole-breast irradiation (WBI) are both effective radiotherapeutic interventions for early breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery; however, an issue on whether which one can entail the better prognosis is still controversial. Our study aimed to investigate the 5-year oncological efficacy of the IORT cohort and the WBI cohort, respectively, and compare the oncological efficacy between the cohorts.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a computerized retrieval to identify English published articles between 2000 and 2021 in the PubMed, the Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and APA PsycInfo databases. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed in duplicate.ResultsA total of 38 studies were eligible, with 30,225 analyzed participants. A non-comparative binary meta-analysis was performed to calculate the weighted average 5-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) in the two cohorts, respectively. The LRFS, DMFS, and OS (without restriction on the 5-year outcomes) between the two cohorts were further investigated by a comparative binary meta-analysis. The weighted average 5-year LRFS, DMFS, and OS in the IORT cohort were 96.3, 96.6, and 94.1%, respectively, and in the WBI cohort were 98.0, 94.9, and 94.9%, respectively. Our pooled results indicated that the LRFS in the IORT cohort was significantly lower than that in the WBI cohort (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 2.36; 95% confidential interval [CI], 1.66–3.36). Nevertheless, the comparisons of DMFS (pooled OR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76–1.31), and OS (pooled OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79–1.14) between the IORT cohort with the WBI cohort were both not statistically significant.ConclusionsDespite the drastically high 5-year oncological efficacy in both cohorts, the LRFS in the IORT cohort is significantly poorer than that in the WBI cohort, and DMFS and OS do not differ between cohorts.