Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2017
Transvaginal Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy of Pelvic Masses.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lin Shi-Yang, Xiong Yong-Hong, Yun Miao, Liu Long-Zhong, Zheng Wei, Lin Xi, Pei Xiao-Qing, Li An-Hua
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of transvaginal ultrasound (US)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) for obtaining adequate pelvic mass samples for histologic analysis and evaluated factors that may affect biopsy success.
METHODS: Two hundred cases underwent transvaginal US-guided CNBs for primary inoperable tumors, suspicion of metastases to the ovaries or peritoneum, recurrence, or other solid lesions in the pelvis. Biopsy samples were obtained from the pelvic cavity (67.0%), vaginal cuff or vaginal wall (17.5%), or peritoneal cake (15.5%). The potential influences of the biopsy site (pelvic cavity, vaginal cuff or vaginal wall, or peritoneal cake), vascularization, ascites, tumor size, and tumor type (inoperable, metastases, recurrence, or solid pelvic tumor) on the success of transvaginal US-guided CNB were evaluated by a univariate analysis.
RESULTS: Adequate samples were obtained in 192 of 200 biopsies (96.0%), of which 190 yielded successful diagnoses (95.0%). The biopsy site had a significant effect on biopsy adequacy, as there was a significantly lower probability of obtaining satisfactory specimens for histologic verification from the peritoneal cake compared to pelvic tumors and the vaginal cuff or vaginal wall (P < .01). Adequacy was also affected by tumor size (P < .05) but not by vascularization, ascites, or tumor type. No complications occurred during the biopsy procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal US-guided CNB is a safe and effective alternative to more invasive methods for evaluating pelvic lesions, such as laparoscopy and laparotomy.
METHODS: Two hundred cases underwent transvaginal US-guided CNBs for primary inoperable tumors, suspicion of metastases to the ovaries or peritoneum, recurrence, or other solid lesions in the pelvis. Biopsy samples were obtained from the pelvic cavity (67.0%), vaginal cuff or vaginal wall (17.5%), or peritoneal cake (15.5%). The potential influences of the biopsy site (pelvic cavity, vaginal cuff or vaginal wall, or peritoneal cake), vascularization, ascites, tumor size, and tumor type (inoperable, metastases, recurrence, or solid pelvic tumor) on the success of transvaginal US-guided CNB were evaluated by a univariate analysis.
RESULTS: Adequate samples were obtained in 192 of 200 biopsies (96.0%), of which 190 yielded successful diagnoses (95.0%). The biopsy site had a significant effect on biopsy adequacy, as there was a significantly lower probability of obtaining satisfactory specimens for histologic verification from the peritoneal cake compared to pelvic tumors and the vaginal cuff or vaginal wall (P < .01). Adequacy was also affected by tumor size (P < .05) but not by vascularization, ascites, or tumor type. No complications occurred during the biopsy procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal US-guided CNB is a safe and effective alternative to more invasive methods for evaluating pelvic lesions, such as laparoscopy and laparotomy.