Journal of interventional gastroenterology · 2012
The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (eus-fna) for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown origin.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Korenblit Jason, Anantharaman Archana, Loren David E, Kowalski Thomas E, Siddiqui Ali A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of is difficult, especially when no primary lesion has been identified. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA cytology in patients with enlarged intra-abdominal lymph nodes of unknown etiology.
PATIENT AND METHODS: 147 patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy on imaging in whom EUS-FNA was performed with a 22-gauge needle. Performance characteristics of EUS-FNA including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: AThe location of the enlarged lymph nodes was the celiac axis (8.2%), peri-gastric (34%), peri-pancreatic (25.2%), peri-portal (27.9%), and other intra-abdominal locations (4.8%). The median number of EUS-FNA passes was 5. The final diagnosis were lymphoma in (n=27), metastatic adenocarcinoma (n=44) patients, other miscellaneous malignancies (n=22) and benign disease (n=54). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 89.7, 98.3, and 93.5% respectively. A false positive FNA result was present in only 1 case (0.7%); false negative FNA results were present in eight cases (5.8%). Lymph node morphologic features of roundness, echogenicity, and homogeneity on EUS were not a predictor of lymph node malignancy.
CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort trial, EUS-FNA was found to be highly accurate and safe in diagnosing patients with intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology.
PATIENT AND METHODS: 147 patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy on imaging in whom EUS-FNA was performed with a 22-gauge needle. Performance characteristics of EUS-FNA including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: AThe location of the enlarged lymph nodes was the celiac axis (8.2%), peri-gastric (34%), peri-pancreatic (25.2%), peri-portal (27.9%), and other intra-abdominal locations (4.8%). The median number of EUS-FNA passes was 5. The final diagnosis were lymphoma in (n=27), metastatic adenocarcinoma (n=44) patients, other miscellaneous malignancies (n=22) and benign disease (n=54). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 89.7, 98.3, and 93.5% respectively. A false positive FNA result was present in only 1 case (0.7%); false negative FNA results were present in eight cases (5.8%). Lymph node morphologic features of roundness, echogenicity, and homogeneity on EUS were not a predictor of lymph node malignancy.
CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort trial, EUS-FNA was found to be highly accurate and safe in diagnosing patients with intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology.