4.5 Article

Value and Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided Full Core Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Lymphadenopathy: A Retrospective Evaluation of 793 Cases

期刊

JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 559-567

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jum.15134

关键词

lymphadenopathy; lymphoma; ultrasound-guided full core needle biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Whole surgical lymph node excision (SNE) is considered the standard diagnostic method in the primary diagnosis of lymphadenopathy (LA) suspected of malignancy. Ultrasound-guided full core needle biopsy (UFCNB) offers an alternative method to SNE. This study examined the accuracy of UFCNB in the diagnosis of unexplained LA in 793 cases. Methods From January 2006 to June 2015, a total of 793 cases of LA of unknown origin received a UFCNB. The lymph nodes were located peripherally (68%) or abdominally (32%). The final diagnoses from histopathologic examinations were non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 245), Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 53), solid nonlymphocytic lymph node metastases (n = 359), and benign LA (n = 136). The results of the biopsies were retrospectively evaluated with regard to sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy. Results In the total collective of 793 biopsies, the sensitivity of UFCNB was 94.4%; the specificity was 97.8%; and the diagnostic accuracy was 95.0%. In the subgroups, the following results were obtained: non-Hodgkin lymphoma (sensitivity, 97.2%), Hodgkin lymphoma (sensitivity, 88.7%), metastases (sensitivity, 93.3%), and benign LA (specificity, 97.8%). In 17 cases (2.2%), an additional rebiopsy of the lymph node was needed, and in 85 cases (10.7%), an additional SNE was performed. Conclusions Due to the diagnostic accuracy of 95.0% in the total collective, UFCNB seems to be an alternative diagnostic procedure to the standard procedure of SNE for LA of unknown origin. A prospective comparative study to definitively clarify the diagnostic value of UFCNB compared to SNE in the unexplained LA is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据