Efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy in anterior mediastinal masses

Peili Fan , Jiaying Cao , Yunjie Jin , Hong Han , Wenping Wang , Huixiong Xu , Zhengbiao Ji
{"title":"Efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy in anterior mediastinal masses","authors":"Peili Fan ,&nbsp;Jiaying Cao ,&nbsp;Yunjie Jin ,&nbsp;Hong Han ,&nbsp;Wenping Wang ,&nbsp;Huixiong Xu ,&nbsp;Zhengbiao Ji","doi":"10.1016/j.jimed.2022.04.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous core needle biopsy (PCNB) using ultrasound (US)-guided and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided procedures for anterior mediastinal masses (AMMs).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In total, 284 consecutive patients (166 men, 118 women; mean age, 43.0 ​± ​18.4 years) who underwent PCNB for AMMs were enrolled. Patients were divided into the US-guided group (n ​= ​133) and the CEUS-guided group (n ​= ​151). PCNB was performed using a core needle (16-gauge or 18-gauge). Internal necrosis, diagnostic yield, and diagnostic accuracy were compared between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The predominant final diagnosis of the cases in this study was thymoma (29.7%), lymphoma (20.5%), thymic carcinoma (13.3%), and germ cell tumour (13.3%), respectively. There was no significant difference in patient age, sex, number of percutaneous biopsies, or display rate of internal necrosis on conventional US between the two groups. The rate of internal necrosis of the lesions was significantly higher after contrast agent injection (72.2% vs. 41.7%; <em>P</em> ​&lt; ​0.001). The CEUS-guided group had a higher diagnostic yield than the US-guided group (100% vs. 89.5%, <em>P</em> ​&lt; ​0.001). There was no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of the CEUS-guided and US-guided groups (97.3% vs. 97.4%; <em>P</em> ​= ​1.000). None of the patients experienced adverse reactions or complications after US-guided or CEUS-guided PCNB.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CEUS-guided PCNB can improve the diagnostic yield by optimizing the biopsy procedure.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a3/6b/main.PMC9617154.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096360222000345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous core needle biopsy (PCNB) using ultrasound (US)-guided and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided procedures for anterior mediastinal masses (AMMs).

Methods

In total, 284 consecutive patients (166 men, 118 women; mean age, 43.0 ​± ​18.4 years) who underwent PCNB for AMMs were enrolled. Patients were divided into the US-guided group (n ​= ​133) and the CEUS-guided group (n ​= ​151). PCNB was performed using a core needle (16-gauge or 18-gauge). Internal necrosis, diagnostic yield, and diagnostic accuracy were compared between the two groups.

Results

The predominant final diagnosis of the cases in this study was thymoma (29.7%), lymphoma (20.5%), thymic carcinoma (13.3%), and germ cell tumour (13.3%), respectively. There was no significant difference in patient age, sex, number of percutaneous biopsies, or display rate of internal necrosis on conventional US between the two groups. The rate of internal necrosis of the lesions was significantly higher after contrast agent injection (72.2% vs. 41.7%; P ​< ​0.001). The CEUS-guided group had a higher diagnostic yield than the US-guided group (100% vs. 89.5%, P ​< ​0.001). There was no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of the CEUS-guided and US-guided groups (97.3% vs. 97.4%; P ​= ​1.000). None of the patients experienced adverse reactions or complications after US-guided or CEUS-guided PCNB.

Conclusions

CEUS-guided PCNB can improve the diagnostic yield by optimizing the biopsy procedure.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超声造影引导下经皮穿刺前纵隔肿块活检的疗效
目的评价超声(US)引导和超声增强(CEUS)引导下经皮穿刺穿刺活检(PCNB)治疗前纵隔肿块(AMMs)的有效性和安全性。方法共284例患者(男性166例,女性118例;平均年龄(43.0±18.4岁)。患者分为us引导组(133例)和超声造影引导组(151例)。PCNB采用芯针(16号或18号)。比较两组间的内坏死、诊断率和诊断准确性。结果本组病例的最终诊断以胸腺瘤(29.7%)、淋巴瘤(20.5%)、胸腺癌(13.3%)和生殖细胞瘤(13.3%)为主。两组患者在年龄、性别、经皮活检次数、常规超声检查内坏死显示率等方面均无显著差异。注射造影剂后病变内坏死率明显增高(72.2% vs. 41.7%;P & lt;0.001)。超声造影引导组的诊断率高于超声引导组(100% vs. 89.5%, P <0.001)。超声造影引导组和超声引导组的诊断准确率无显著差异(97.3% vs 97.4%;p = 1.000)。us引导或超声造影引导下的PCNB均未发生不良反应或并发症。结论超声引导下PCNB可通过优化活检方法提高诊断准确率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Interventional Medicine
Journal of Interventional Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
68 days
期刊最新文献
Baseline parameters of spectral CT could predict tumor response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma patients Validation of the CRAFITY score for predicting prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization combined with systemic therapy Diagnostic radiology: The essential for effective and safe practice of interventional radiology Percutaneous radiofrequency and microwave ablation for renal pelvic urothelial carcinoma with refractory hematuria: A case report Combination of transarterial radioembolization with atezolizumab and bevacizumab for intermediate and advanced staged hepatocellular carcinoma: A preliminary report of safety and feasibility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1