N R Qureshi1, N M Rahman, F V Gleeson. 1. Department of Radiology, Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Papworth Everard, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common clinical problem with described investigation pathways. While thoracic ultrasound (TUS) has been shown to be accurate in pleural fluid detection, its use in the diagnosis of malignant pleural disease has not been assessed. A study was undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy of TUS in differentiating malignant and benign pleural disease. METHODS: 52 consecutive patients with suspected MPE underwent TUS and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). TUS was used to assess pleural surfaces using previously published CT imaging criteria for malignancy, diaphragmatic thickness/nodularity, effusion size/nature and presence of hepatic metastasis (in right-sided effusions). A TUS diagnosis of malignant or benign disease was made blind to clinical data/other investigations by a second blinded operator using anonymised TUS video clips. The TUS diagnosis was compared with the definitive clinical diagnosis and in addition to the diagnosis found at CECT. RESULTS: A definitive malignant diagnosis was based on histocytology (30/33; 91%) and clinical/CT follow-up (3/33; 9%). Benign diagnoses were based on negative histocytology and follow-up over 12 months in 19/19 patients. TUS correctly diagnosed malignancy in 26/33 patients (sensitivity 73%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 79%) and benign disease in 19/19. Pleural thickening >1 cm, pleural nodularity and diaphragmatic thickening >7 mm were highly suggestive of malignant disease. CONCLUSION: TUS is useful in differentiating malignant from benign pleural disease in patients presenting with suspected MPE and may become an important adjunct in the diagnostic pathway.
BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common clinical problem with described investigation pathways. While thoracic ultrasound (TUS) has been shown to be accurate in pleural fluid detection, its use in the diagnosis of malignant pleural disease has not been assessed. A study was undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy of TUS in differentiating malignant and benign pleural disease. METHODS: 52 consecutive patients with suspected MPE underwent TUS and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). TUS was used to assess pleural surfaces using previously published CT imaging criteria for malignancy, diaphragmatic thickness/nodularity, effusion size/nature and presence of hepatic metastasis (in right-sided effusions). A TUS diagnosis of malignant or benign disease was made blind to clinical data/other investigations by a second blinded operator using anonymised TUS video clips. The TUS diagnosis was compared with the definitive clinical diagnosis and in addition to the diagnosis found at CECT. RESULTS: A definitive malignant diagnosis was based on histocytology (30/33; 91%) and clinical/CT follow-up (3/33; 9%). Benign diagnoses were based on negative histocytology and follow-up over 12 months in 19/19 patients. TUS correctly diagnosed malignancy in 26/33 patients (sensitivity 73%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 79%) and benign disease in 19/19. Pleural thickening >1 cm, pleural nodularity and diaphragmatic thickening >7 mm were highly suggestive of malignant disease. CONCLUSION: TUS is useful in differentiating malignant from benign pleural disease in patients presenting with suspected MPE and may become an important adjunct in the diagnostic pathway.
Authors: Giovanni Volpicelli; Mahmoud Elbarbary; Michael Blaivas; Daniel A Lichtenstein; Gebhard Mathis; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Lawrence Melniker; Luna Gargani; Vicki E Noble; Gabriele Via; Anthony Dean; James W Tsung; Gino Soldati; Roberto Copetti; Belaid Bouhemad; Angelika Reissig; Eustachio Agricola; Jean-Jacques Rouby; Charlotte Arbelot; Andrew Liteplo; Ashot Sargsyan; Fernando Silva; Richard Hoppmann; Raoul Breitkreutz; Armin Seibel; Luca Neri; Enrico Storti; Tomislav Petrovic Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: J de Castro; M Cobo; D Isla; J Puente; N Reguart; B Cabeza; A Gayete; M Sánchez; M I Torres; J Ferreirós Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Simon Reuter; Dennis Lindgaard; Christian Laursen; Barbara Malene Fischer; Paul Frost Clementsen; Uffe Bodtger Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Nilam J Soni; Ricardo Franco; Maria I Velez; Daniel Schnobrich; Ria Dancel; Marcos I Restrepo; Paul H Mayo Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 2.960