Dan Zhao1, Ya-Qin Shao1, Jun Hu1, Dan Liu1, Wei Tang1, Ning He1. 1. Department of Ultrasonography, Zhejiang Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine Hospital, Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Tuberculosis Diagnostic and Treatment Center of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic value of core-needle biopsy (CNB) guided by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in cervical tuberculous lymphadenitis (CTL). METHODS: 178 patients with pathological confirmation of CTL were retrospectively enrolled. All of them had undergone CNB prior to the final surgery. According to the different ways of puncture guidance, they were divided into two groups: conventional ultrasound (US) group (n = 81) and CEUS group (n = 97). The comparison of diagnostic efficacy between two groups was compared and analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 178 patients, 146 were directly diagnosed as CTL by CNB, including 59 patients in CEUS group and 87 patients in US group. The diagnostic accuracy were 89.7% (87/97) and 72.8% (59/81), respectively (P < 0.01). For subgroup analyses, differences among diagnostic efficacy ascribed to the different guiding methods were significant in medium size group (>2.0 cm and ≤3.0 cm) and large size group (>3.0 cm), 91.7% for CEUS group vs. 69.0% for US group (P < 0.05) and 84.4% for CEUS group vs. 57.7% for US group (P < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the diagnosis of CTL, compared with the US-guided CNB, CEUS-guided CNB have certain advantages, especially for larger lymph nodes.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic value of core-needle biopsy (CNB) guided by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in cervical tuberculous lymphadenitis (CTL). METHODS: 178 patients with pathological confirmation of CTL were retrospectively enrolled. All of them had undergone CNB prior to the final surgery. According to the different ways of puncture guidance, they were divided into two groups: conventional ultrasound (US) group (n = 81) and CEUS group (n = 97). The comparison of diagnostic efficacy between two groups was compared and analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 178 patients, 146 were directly diagnosed as CTL by CNB, including 59 patients in CEUS group and 87 patients in US group. The diagnostic accuracy were 89.7% (87/97) and 72.8% (59/81), respectively (P < 0.01). For subgroup analyses, differences among diagnostic efficacy ascribed to the different guiding methods were significant in medium size group (>2.0 cm and ≤3.0 cm) and large size group (>3.0 cm), 91.7% for CEUS group vs. 69.0% for US group (P < 0.05) and 84.4% for CEUS group vs. 57.7% for US group (P < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the diagnosis of CTL, compared with the US-guided CNB, CEUS-guided CNB have certain advantages, especially for larger lymph nodes.