Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia · 2020
Use of Ultrasonography Facilitates Noninvasive Evaluation of Lymphadenopathy in a Lymph Node Diagnostic Clinic.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Loh Zoe, Hawkes Eliza A, Chionh Fiona, Azad Arun, Chong Geoffrey
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prompt and accurate diagnosis of lymphadenopathy is important, yet there is wide variability in clinical approach and referral patterns, leading to unnecessary investigations and delays in diagnosis. To address this, a lymph node diagnostic clinic (LNDC) was established at our tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 320 consecutive patients referred to the LNDC from March 2008 to March 2020, to describe their management and outcomes.
RESULTS: The most common diagnoses were reactive (57%) and malignant lymphadenopathy (28%). In those with reactive lymphadenopathy, 33% did not undergo further investigations, 37% underwent imaging only, and 29% underwent biopsy. For malignant lymphadenopathy, diagnosis was made at a median (interquartile range) of 9 (6-16) days from first LNDC review, with the decision to biopsy made at the first LNDC review in 95% of cases. Clinical features significantly associated with malignancy included age > 45, B symptoms, history of malignancy, and lymphadenopathy that was ≥ 2 cm, in multiple regions, bilateral, multiple nodes, or supraclavicular. At least 3 of these features were present in 88% of patients with malignant lymphadenopathy. Ultrasound had a sensitivity of 98% and negative predictive value of 97% for detecting malignant lymphadenopathy.
CONCLUSION: A dedicated LNDC in a tertiary referral center facilitates rapid assessment and diagnosis of lymphadenopathy through a risk-stratified model of management. Ultrasonography, as well as the presence of defined clinical risk factors, were most useful to differentiate benign from malignant lymphadenopathy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 320 consecutive patients referred to the LNDC from March 2008 to March 2020, to describe their management and outcomes.
RESULTS: The most common diagnoses were reactive (57%) and malignant lymphadenopathy (28%). In those with reactive lymphadenopathy, 33% did not undergo further investigations, 37% underwent imaging only, and 29% underwent biopsy. For malignant lymphadenopathy, diagnosis was made at a median (interquartile range) of 9 (6-16) days from first LNDC review, with the decision to biopsy made at the first LNDC review in 95% of cases. Clinical features significantly associated with malignancy included age > 45, B symptoms, history of malignancy, and lymphadenopathy that was ≥ 2 cm, in multiple regions, bilateral, multiple nodes, or supraclavicular. At least 3 of these features were present in 88% of patients with malignant lymphadenopathy. Ultrasound had a sensitivity of 98% and negative predictive value of 97% for detecting malignant lymphadenopathy.
CONCLUSION: A dedicated LNDC in a tertiary referral center facilitates rapid assessment and diagnosis of lymphadenopathy through a risk-stratified model of management. Ultrasonography, as well as the presence of defined clinical risk factors, were most useful to differentiate benign from malignant lymphadenopathy.