We have located links that may give you full text access.
The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (eus-fna) for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown origin.
Journal of Interventional Gastroenterology 2012 October
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of is difficult, especially when no primary lesion has been identified. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA cytology in patients with enlarged intra-abdominal lymph nodes of unknown etiology.
PATIENT AND METHODS: 147 patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy on imaging in whom EUS-FNA was performed with a 22-gauge needle. Performance characteristics of EUS-FNA including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: AThe location of the enlarged lymph nodes was the celiac axis (8.2%), peri-gastric (34%), peri-pancreatic (25.2%), peri-portal (27.9%), and other intra-abdominal locations (4.8%). The median number of EUS-FNA passes was 5. The final diagnosis were lymphoma in (n=27), metastatic adenocarcinoma (n=44) patients, other miscellaneous malignancies (n=22) and benign disease (n=54). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 89.7, 98.3, and 93.5% respectively. A false positive FNA result was present in only 1 case (0.7%); false negative FNA results were present in eight cases (5.8%). Lymph node morphologic features of roundness, echogenicity, and homogeneity on EUS were not a predictor of lymph node malignancy.
CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort trial, EUS-FNA was found to be highly accurate and safe in diagnosing patients with intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology.
PATIENT AND METHODS: 147 patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy on imaging in whom EUS-FNA was performed with a 22-gauge needle. Performance characteristics of EUS-FNA including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: AThe location of the enlarged lymph nodes was the celiac axis (8.2%), peri-gastric (34%), peri-pancreatic (25.2%), peri-portal (27.9%), and other intra-abdominal locations (4.8%). The median number of EUS-FNA passes was 5. The final diagnosis were lymphoma in (n=27), metastatic adenocarcinoma (n=44) patients, other miscellaneous malignancies (n=22) and benign disease (n=54). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 89.7, 98.3, and 93.5% respectively. A false positive FNA result was present in only 1 case (0.7%); false negative FNA results were present in eight cases (5.8%). Lymph node morphologic features of roundness, echogenicity, and homogeneity on EUS were not a predictor of lymph node malignancy.
CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort trial, EUS-FNA was found to be highly accurate and safe in diagnosing patients with intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app