Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Quant Imaging Med Surg ; 14(7): 4555-4566, 2024 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39022290

RESUMO

Background: The American College of Radiology (ACR) developed the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for pure blood contrast agents, but Sonazoid was not included. Modifications to LI-RADS have been proposed for Sonazoid. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify and compare the diagnostic efficacy of the two LI-RADS algorithms of Sonazoid. Methods: We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from databases inception to August 31, 2023, to find original studies on the ACR LI-RADS and/or modified LI-RADS algorithm with Sonazoid used as the contrast agent in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A bivariate random-effects model was used. Data pooling, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were performed for meta-analysis. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the methodological quality, and the Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test was used to evaluate the publication bias. Results: A meta-analysis of 10 studies with 1,611 observations was conducted. The pooled data for ACR LI-RADS category 5 (LR-5) and modified LR-5 were respectively as follows: pooled sensitivity, 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-0.75] and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86) (P<0.05); pooled specificity, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81-0.91) (P>0.05); and pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.84 and 0.91. The diagnostic performance of LI-RADS category M (LR-M) of the two algorithms was comparable. Study heterogeneity was observed. Conclusions: The results indicated that modified LR-5 algorithm demonstrated improved diagnostic sensitivity compared with the ACR LR-5 algorithm of Sonazoid, with differences observed between the different versions. Further research is needed to validate and explore the optimal diagnostic criteria for HCC using Sonazoid. Before the database search was conducted, this study was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42023455220).

2.
Quant Imaging Med Surg ; 14(4): 2762-2773, 2024 Apr 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38617146

RESUMO

Background: The preoperative pathological diagnosis of rectal lesions is crucial for formulating treatment plans. For subepithelial lesions (SELs) and larger lesions with necrosis of the rectum, endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) cannot provide an accurate pathological diagnosis in most cases. By comparing the efficacy and safety of transrectal contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transperineal core-needle biopsy (TRCEUS-TP-CNB) and EFB, this study explored the value of TRCEUS-TP-CNB in the diagnosis of complex rectal lesions, such as SELs. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted with 32 consecutive patients with complex rectal lesions admitted to our hospital from May 2016 to June 2022. Clinical, ultrasound, and pathological data were collected from these patients who underwent EFB followed by TRCEUS-TP-CNB. Results: The success rate of EFB was 21.88% (7/32) and that of TRCEUS-TP-CNB was 93.75% (30/32). No significant complications were observed for either biopsy method. Factors affecting the success rate of EFB included the lesion width (cm) (1.90±0.62 vs. 4.26±2.40, P<0.001) and lesion thickness (cm) (1.29±0.51 vs. 2.96±1.75, P<0.001). The success rate of TRCEUS-TP-CNB was not affected by these factors. In the paired study of TRCEUS-TP-CNB and EFB, the times of samples per person (1 vs. 2.14±0.90, P=0.015), number of specimens per sample (8.27±1.93 vs. 3.31±1.67, P<0.001), lesion width (cm) (3.79±2.42 vs. 1.90±0.62, P=0.001), and lesion thickness (cm) (2.64±1.75 vs. 1.29±0.51, P=0.001) were the factors affecting the difference of the sampling success rate. In the SELs, the success rate of EFB was 10% (1/10) and that of TRCEUS-TP-CNB was 100% (10/10), and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P=0.004). Conclusions: TRCEUS-TP-CNB is an effective biopsy method for complex rectal lesions. The success rate of EFB is lower in the larger lesions. Compared with EFB, TRCEUS-TP-CNB required fewer times of samples be taken and obtained more specimens. For larger lesions and SELs of the rectum, TRCEUS-TP-CNB is expected to become one of the preferred biopsy methods.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA