Core Needle Biopsy Targeting the Viable Area of Deep-Sited Dominant Lesion Verified by Color Doppler and/or Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Contribute to the Actionable Diagnosis of the Patients Suspicious of Lymphoma.
color Doppler flow imaging
contrast – enhanced ultrasonography
core needle biopsies
diagnostic hematology
imaging
lymphomas
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
24
09
2019
accepted:
14
09
2020
entrez:
29
10
2020
pubmed:
30
10
2020
medline:
30
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Inadequate accuracy of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) urges further improvement for the diagnosis and management of lymphoma to meet with the practitioners' increased reliance on this mini-invasive approach. Data related to US-CNB of the deep-sited dominant lesions suspicious of lymphoma detected by computer tomography or positron-emission tomography/computer tomography for eligibility assessment of three prospective clinical trials were collected in advance. A retrospective analysis of the prospective data collection was performed, in which Viable-targeting US-CNB that Color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) and/or contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) were employed to select viable area for biopsy target compared with Routine US-CNB that routine procedure of evaluation and guidance using gray-scale ultrasound with CDFI in terms of the yield of clinically actionable diagnosis and safety, and determinants for the successful US-CNB that established an actionable diagnosis were explored. The establishment of final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology or medical response to therapy with follow-up at least 6 months. A total of 245 patients underwent Routine US-CNB ( Viable-Targeting US-CNB was superior to routine US-CNB in term of the yield of actionable diagnosis for deep-sited dominant lesions suspicious of lymphoma, which demonstrated a potential to be the initial approach in this setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Inadequate accuracy of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) urges further improvement for the diagnosis and management of lymphoma to meet with the practitioners' increased reliance on this mini-invasive approach.
METHODS
METHODS
Data related to US-CNB of the deep-sited dominant lesions suspicious of lymphoma detected by computer tomography or positron-emission tomography/computer tomography for eligibility assessment of three prospective clinical trials were collected in advance. A retrospective analysis of the prospective data collection was performed, in which Viable-targeting US-CNB that Color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) and/or contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) were employed to select viable area for biopsy target compared with Routine US-CNB that routine procedure of evaluation and guidance using gray-scale ultrasound with CDFI in terms of the yield of clinically actionable diagnosis and safety, and determinants for the successful US-CNB that established an actionable diagnosis were explored. The establishment of final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology or medical response to therapy with follow-up at least 6 months.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 245 patients underwent Routine US-CNB (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Viable-Targeting US-CNB was superior to routine US-CNB in term of the yield of actionable diagnosis for deep-sited dominant lesions suspicious of lymphoma, which demonstrated a potential to be the initial approach in this setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33117672
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.500153
pmc: PMC7577120
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
500153Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Li, Han, Wang, Mo, Li, Xiang, Li, Zhou and Wang.
Références
Ultraschall Med. 2012 Feb;33(1):33-59
pubmed: 21874631
Am J Otolaryngol. 2018 Nov - Dec;39(6):679-684
pubmed: 30055795
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7-34
pubmed: 30620402
Ultrasound Med Biol. 1990;16(6):553-9
pubmed: 2238263
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3048-58
pubmed: 25113771
Blood. 2016 May 19;127(20):2375-90
pubmed: 26980727
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 Feb;139(2):245-51
pubmed: 25611108
Am J Clin Pathol. 2013 Aug;140(2):238-47
pubmed: 23897261
Chin J Cancer. 2017 Aug 17;36(1):66
pubmed: 28818111
Am J Surg. 2014 Dec;208(6):1003-8; discussion 1007-8
pubmed: 25286777
Oncol Lett. 2018 May;15(5):6991-6999
pubmed: 29725426
Endosc Ultrasound. 2015 Apr-Jun;4(2):160-1
pubmed: 26020055
Ann Hematol. 2017 Apr;96(4):627-637
pubmed: 28130574
Cancer Med. 2014 Oct;3(5):1336-41
pubmed: 25044810
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jul;41(7):852-8
pubmed: 25980745
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Sep 15;22(18):3733-40
pubmed: 15365070
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Aug 1;22(15):3046-52
pubmed: 15284254
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Dec 1;28(34):e719-20; author reply e721-2
pubmed: 20733137
Ann Hematol. 2016 Aug;95(8):1281-6
pubmed: 27236576
Acta Oncol. 2017 Jan;56(1):106-109
pubmed: 27796168
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Mar-Apr;66(2):115-32
pubmed: 26808342
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jan 18;2018:9825709
pubmed: 29581992
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014 Dec;40(12):2768-76
pubmed: 25261906
Haematologica. 1998 Nov;83(11):989-92
pubmed: 9864918
Eur J Haematol. 2016 Oct;97(4):379-86
pubmed: 26833691
Hematol Oncol. 2015 Dec;33(4):247-9
pubmed: 24986739