4.6 Article

Possible Role of Chest Ultrasound in the Assessment of Costo-Phrenic Angle Lesions Prior to Medical Thoracoscopy: A Retrospective Pilot Case Series

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112587

Keywords

chest ultrasound; medical thoracoscopy; pleural effusion; pleural malignancy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the application of lung ultrasound in diagnosing pleural malignancies, finding that LUS was more efficient and accurate in detecting pleural abnormalities in CPA compared to CCT, potentially aiding in changing and speeding up the diagnostic process.
Background: Pleural malignancy (PM) and malignant pleural effusion (MPE) represent an increasing burden of diseases. Costo-phrenic angle (CPA) could be involved by malignant small nodularities or thickenings in the case of MPE. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether lung ultrasound (LUS), performed prior to medical thoracoscopy (MT), could detect pleural abnormalities in CPA not easily detectable by chest computed tomography scan (CCT). Methods: Patients suspected for PM and MPE were retrospectively recruited. Patients underwent both LUS examination with a linear array and CCT prior to diagnostic medical thoracoscopy. LUS pathological findings in CPA were compared with pathological findings detected by CCT. Findings were confirmed by subsequent MT, the gold standard for PMs. Results: Twenty-eight patients were recruited. LUS detected 23 cases of pleural abnormalities in CPA. CCT was detected 12 pleural abnormalities. Inter-rater agreement between the two techniques was minimal (Cohen's Kappa: 0.28). MT detected PMs in CPA in 22 patients. LUS had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 83%. CCT had a sensitivity of 54% and specificity of 100%. A better sensitivity for CCT was reached analysing only all abnormalities > 5 mm (64.3%). Conclusions: LUS examination, in the case of PMs, could change and speed up diagnostic workup.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available