4.5 Article

Accuracy of sonographic vascular features in differentiating different causes of cervical lymphadenopathy

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 441-447

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.12.009

Keywords

power Doppler sonography; vascular features; cervical lymph nodes; diagnostic accuracy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was undertaken to evaluate the accuracy of the power Doppler sonographic features in differentiating cervical lymphadenopathy in different diseases. We reviewed power Doppler sonograms of 270 patients with palpable neck nodes (metastases n = 101, lymphoma n = 21, tuberculosis n = 76, reactive n = 72). Confirmed diagnosis was either made by fine-needle aspiration cytology on the largest node or by excision biopsy. In each patient, the largest node was included in the study. The node was evaluated using the vascular pattern, displacement of vascularity and vascular resistance (resistance index, RI, and pulsatility index, PI). Individual groups were compared and the optimum vascular feature in the differential diagnosis was determined. Vascular pattern was more useful in differentiating reactive nodes from malignant nodes, with a sensitivity of 88% for metastases and 67% for lymphoma, and a specificity of 100%. RI with a cut-off value of 0.8 was more accurate in distinguishing metastases (RI > 0.8) from lymphoma (RI < 0.8), with an accuracy of 65% and 75%, respectively. Displacement of vascularity was helpful to differentiate tuberculous nodes (accuracy: 67%) from reactive and lymphomatous nodes (accuracy: 100% and 95%, respectively), whereas PI with a cut-off of 1.5 helped the differentiation between tuberculosis (PI < 1.5) and metastases (PI > 1.5), with an accuracy of 77% in both diseases. When appropriate criteria are used, power Doppler sonography is a valuable adjunct in the sonographic evaluation of cervical lymphadenopathy. (E-maill: ormying@polyu.edu.hk) (C) 2004 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine Biology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available