| Title |
Efficacy of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy in cervical lymphadenopathy: A retrospective study of 6,695 cases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-017-5116-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Feng Han, Min Xu, Ting Xie, Jian-Wei Wang, Qing-Guang Lin, Zhi-Xing Guo, Wei Zheng, Jing Han, Xi Lin, Ru-Hai Zou, Jian-Hua Zhou, An-Hua Li |
| Abstract |
To determine the diagnostic yield of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) in cervical lymphadenopathy and identify the factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy of US-CNB. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 6,603 patients with cervical lymphadenopathy who underwent 6695 US-CNB procedures between 2004 and 2017. Adequate specimens were obtained in 92.19 % (6,172/6,695) of cases. Most lymph nodes (67.65 %) were malignant (metastatic carcinoma 4,131; lymphoma 398). The overall accuracy of US-CNB for differentiating benign from malignant lesions was 91.70 % (6,139/6,695). Among biopsies in which adequate material was obtained, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of US-CNB were 99.70 %, 100 % and 99.46 %, respectively. The success or failure of US-CNB for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy was significantly correlated with node size, nature (malignant vs. benign), and location as well as penetration depth, but not with needle size (p = 0.665), number of core tissues obtained (p = 0.324), or history of malignancy (p = 0.060). There were no major procedure-related complications. US-CNB is a safe and effective method of diagnosing cervical lymphadenopathy, and our findings may help optimise the sampling procedure by maximising its diagnostic accuracy and preserving its minimally invasive nature. • US-CNB is useful for the diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy. • US-CNB is safe to perform on lymph nodes located near vital structures. • Larger, malignant, level IV lymph nodes yield sufficient tissue samples more easily. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,995,899
of 23,138,859 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#303
of 4,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,906
of 439,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#8
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,138,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,189 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.