Steven P Daniels1, Lori Mankowski Gettle2, Donna G Blankenbaker2, Kenneth S Lee2, Andrew B Ross2. 1. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Heath, 660 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA. daniels.stevenp@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 E. Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present our experience with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided musculoskeletal soft tissue biopsies in a busy interventional clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After IRB approval was obtained and informed consent was waived, we retrospectively reviewed all CEUS-guided musculoskeletal biopsies performed from December 1, 2018 to March 2, 2020. Relevant pre-procedure imaging was reviewed. Number of samples, suspected necrosis on pre-procedure imaging, specimen adequacy for pathologic analysis, correlation with pathologic diagnosis of surgical resection specimens, and procedural complications were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-six CEUS-guided musculoskeletal biopsies were performed in 32 patients (mean age 57, range 26-88; 22 males, 10 females). All procedures were performed using 16-gauge biopsy needles, and all procedures provided adequate samples for pathologic analysis as per the final pathology report. Between two and seven core specimens were obtained (mean 3.7). In 30/36 cases (83%), a contrast-enhanced MRI was obtained prior to biopsy, and 10/30 (33%) of these cases showed imaging features suspicious for necrosis. In 15/36 cases, surgical resection was performed, and the core biopsy and surgical resection specimens were concordant in 14/15 cases (93%). One patient noted transient leg discomfort at the time of microbubble bursting. Otherwise, no adverse reactions or procedural complications were observed. CONCLUSION: CEUS is an accurate way to safely target representative areas of soft tissue lesions for biopsy and can be implemented in a busy interventional clinic. Our early experience has shown this to be a promising technique, especially in targeting representative areas of heterogeneous lesions and lesions with areas of suspected necrosis on prior imaging.
OBJECTIVE: To present our experience with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided musculoskeletal soft tissue biopsies in a busy interventional clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After IRB approval was obtained and informed consent was waived, we retrospectively reviewed all CEUS-guided musculoskeletal biopsies performed from December 1, 2018 to March 2, 2020. Relevant pre-procedure imaging was reviewed. Number of samples, suspected necrosis on pre-procedure imaging, specimen adequacy for pathologic analysis, correlation with pathologic diagnosis of surgical resection specimens, and procedural complications were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-six CEUS-guided musculoskeletal biopsies were performed in 32 patients (mean age 57, range 26-88; 22 males, 10 females). All procedures were performed using 16-gauge biopsy needles, and all procedures provided adequate samples for pathologic analysis as per the final pathology report. Between two and seven core specimens were obtained (mean 3.7). In 30/36 cases (83%), a contrast-enhanced MRI was obtained prior to biopsy, and 10/30 (33%) of these cases showed imaging features suspicious for necrosis. In 15/36 cases, surgical resection was performed, and the core biopsy and surgical resection specimens were concordant in 14/15 cases (93%). One patient noted transient leg discomfort at the time of microbubble bursting. Otherwise, no adverse reactions or procedural complications were observed. CONCLUSION: CEUS is an accurate way to safely target representative areas of soft tissue lesions for biopsy and can be implemented in a busy interventional clinic. Our early experience has shown this to be a promising technique, especially in targeting representative areas of heterogeneous lesions and lesions with areas of suspected necrosis on prior imaging.
Authors: G D Dodd; C C Esola; D S Memel; A A Ghiatas; K N Chintapalli; E K Paulson; R C Nelson; J V Ferris; R L Baron Journal: Radiographics Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: James S Jelinek; Mark D Murphey; James A Welker; Robert M Henshaw; Mark J Kransdorf; Barry M Shmookler; Martin M Malawer Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christopher D Malone; David T Fetzer; Wayne L Monsky; Malak Itani; Vincent M Mellnick; Philip A Velez; William D Middleton; Michalakis A Averkiou; Raja S Ramaswamy Journal: Radiographics Date: 2020 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: D Strobel; K Seitz; W Blank; A Schuler; C F Dietrich; A von Herbay; M Friedrich-Rust; T Bernatik Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2009-08-17 Impact factor: 6.548