Ultrasonically guided fine-needle puncture. The limits of the method in the abdomen and retroperitoneal space

The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound-directed fine-needle biopsy in the differentiation of malignancy or otherwise of structures in the abdomen or retroperitoneal space which look suspicious on ultrasound was evaluated from results in 558 patients (306 men, 252 women). Data from two differe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift 1990-05, Vol.115 (21), p.809-812
Hauptverfasser: Holtkamp, W, Theilmeier, A, Droese, M, Ebert, R, Reis, H E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:ger
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 812
container_issue 21
container_start_page 809
container_title Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift
container_volume 115
creator Holtkamp, W
Theilmeier, A
Droese, M
Ebert, R
Reis, H E
description The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound-directed fine-needle biopsy in the differentiation of malignancy or otherwise of structures in the abdomen or retroperitoneal space which look suspicious on ultrasound was evaluated from results in 558 patients (306 men, 252 women). Data from two different centres were used to characterize further the influence of different techniques of puncture, cytopathologists and groups of patients on the validity of the examination. Sensitivity (in the two centres) was 88 and 80%, respectively, specificity 100 and 99%. The validity of the examination was the same at both centres. In both centres the sensitivity was worst for pancreatic tissue, at only 72 and 61% respectively, compared with other organs (e.g. liver, lymph nodes, kidney) (P less than 0.05). Fine-needle biopsy of abdominal and retroperitoneal organs will thus be subject to a not insignificant number of false-negative results of cytological examination.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79772519</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>79772519</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p539-91d31c2cf34d6c1d80d7995a2f9744ee2af9034da07eb009bc79e12d8bcc2a023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkL1OwzAYRT2ASik8ApIntiDbSeN4RBV_UiWWMkdf7C_UyD_Bdoa-PQUyXR3dozvcC7JmjIuKNVJckeucv35R1c2KrATvZNuqNfEfriTIMVgNzp3o52wNGjragFVANA7pNAdd5oQP9HBE6qy3JdM40nImj-UYDbXhj2Aw0WOgEAxNWFKcMNkSA4KjeQKNN-RyBJfxdskNOTw_HXav1f795W33uK-mba0qxU3NtdBj3ZhWc9MxI5XaghiVbBpEAaNi5w6YxIExNWipkAvTDVoLYKLekPv_2SnF7xlz6b3NGp2DgHHOvVRSii1XZ_FuEefBo-mnZD2kU7_cU_8AQYNh8Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79772519</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ultrasonically guided fine-needle puncture. The limits of the method in the abdomen and retroperitoneal space</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Thieme Connect Journals</source><creator>Holtkamp, W ; Theilmeier, A ; Droese, M ; Ebert, R ; Reis, H E</creator><creatorcontrib>Holtkamp, W ; Theilmeier, A ; Droese, M ; Ebert, R ; Reis, H E</creatorcontrib><description>The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound-directed fine-needle biopsy in the differentiation of malignancy or otherwise of structures in the abdomen or retroperitoneal space which look suspicious on ultrasound was evaluated from results in 558 patients (306 men, 252 women). Data from two different centres were used to characterize further the influence of different techniques of puncture, cytopathologists and groups of patients on the validity of the examination. Sensitivity (in the two centres) was 88 and 80%, respectively, specificity 100 and 99%. The validity of the examination was the same at both centres. In both centres the sensitivity was worst for pancreatic tissue, at only 72 and 61% respectively, compared with other organs (e.g. liver, lymph nodes, kidney) (P less than 0.05). Fine-needle biopsy of abdominal and retroperitoneal organs will thus be subject to a not insignificant number of false-negative results of cytological examination.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-0472</identifier><identifier>PMID: 2187669</identifier><language>ger</language><publisher>Germany</publisher><subject>Abdomen - pathology ; Biopsy, Needle - instrumentation ; Biopsy, Needle - methods ; Cytodiagnosis - instrumentation ; Cytodiagnosis - methods ; False Negative Reactions ; Humans ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retroperitoneal Space ; Ultrasonography - methods</subject><ispartof>Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift, 1990-05, Vol.115 (21), p.809-812</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2187669$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Holtkamp, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Theilmeier, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Droese, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ebert, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reis, H E</creatorcontrib><title>Ultrasonically guided fine-needle puncture. The limits of the method in the abdomen and retroperitoneal space</title><title>Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift</title><addtitle>Dtsch Med Wochenschr</addtitle><description>The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound-directed fine-needle biopsy in the differentiation of malignancy or otherwise of structures in the abdomen or retroperitoneal space which look suspicious on ultrasound was evaluated from results in 558 patients (306 men, 252 women). Data from two different centres were used to characterize further the influence of different techniques of puncture, cytopathologists and groups of patients on the validity of the examination. Sensitivity (in the two centres) was 88 and 80%, respectively, specificity 100 and 99%. The validity of the examination was the same at both centres. In both centres the sensitivity was worst for pancreatic tissue, at only 72 and 61% respectively, compared with other organs (e.g. liver, lymph nodes, kidney) (P less than 0.05). Fine-needle biopsy of abdominal and retroperitoneal organs will thus be subject to a not insignificant number of false-negative results of cytological examination.</description><subject>Abdomen - pathology</subject><subject>Biopsy, Needle - instrumentation</subject><subject>Biopsy, Needle - methods</subject><subject>Cytodiagnosis - instrumentation</subject><subject>Cytodiagnosis - methods</subject><subject>False Negative Reactions</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retroperitoneal Space</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - methods</subject><issn>0012-0472</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1990</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNotkL1OwzAYRT2ASik8ApIntiDbSeN4RBV_UiWWMkdf7C_UyD_Bdoa-PQUyXR3dozvcC7JmjIuKNVJckeucv35R1c2KrATvZNuqNfEfriTIMVgNzp3o52wNGjragFVANA7pNAdd5oQP9HBE6qy3JdM40nImj-UYDbXhj2Aw0WOgEAxNWFKcMNkSA4KjeQKNN-RyBJfxdskNOTw_HXav1f795W33uK-mba0qxU3NtdBj3ZhWc9MxI5XaghiVbBpEAaNi5w6YxIExNWipkAvTDVoLYKLekPv_2SnF7xlz6b3NGp2DgHHOvVRSii1XZ_FuEefBo-mnZD2kU7_cU_8AQYNh8Q</recordid><startdate>19900525</startdate><enddate>19900525</enddate><creator>Holtkamp, W</creator><creator>Theilmeier, A</creator><creator>Droese, M</creator><creator>Ebert, R</creator><creator>Reis, H E</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19900525</creationdate><title>Ultrasonically guided fine-needle puncture. The limits of the method in the abdomen and retroperitoneal space</title><author>Holtkamp, W ; Theilmeier, A ; Droese, M ; Ebert, R ; Reis, H E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p539-91d31c2cf34d6c1d80d7995a2f9744ee2af9034da07eb009bc79e12d8bcc2a023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>ger</language><creationdate>1990</creationdate><topic>Abdomen - pathology</topic><topic>Biopsy, Needle - instrumentation</topic><topic>Biopsy, Needle - methods</topic><topic>Cytodiagnosis - instrumentation</topic><topic>Cytodiagnosis - methods</topic><topic>False Negative Reactions</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retroperitoneal Space</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Holtkamp, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Theilmeier, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Droese, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ebert, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reis, H E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Holtkamp, W</au><au>Theilmeier, A</au><au>Droese, M</au><au>Ebert, R</au><au>Reis, H E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ultrasonically guided fine-needle puncture. The limits of the method in the abdomen and retroperitoneal space</atitle><jtitle>Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift</jtitle><addtitle>Dtsch Med Wochenschr</addtitle><date>1990-05-25</date><risdate>1990</risdate><volume>115</volume><issue>21</issue><spage>809</spage><epage>812</epage><pages>809-812</pages><issn>0012-0472</issn><abstract>The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound-directed fine-needle biopsy in the differentiation of malignancy or otherwise of structures in the abdomen or retroperitoneal space which look suspicious on ultrasound was evaluated from results in 558 patients (306 men, 252 women). Data from two different centres were used to characterize further the influence of different techniques of puncture, cytopathologists and groups of patients on the validity of the examination. Sensitivity (in the two centres) was 88 and 80%, respectively, specificity 100 and 99%. The validity of the examination was the same at both centres. In both centres the sensitivity was worst for pancreatic tissue, at only 72 and 61% respectively, compared with other organs (e.g. liver, lymph nodes, kidney) (P less than 0.05). Fine-needle biopsy of abdominal and retroperitoneal organs will thus be subject to a not insignificant number of false-negative results of cytological examination.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pmid>2187669</pmid><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-0472
ispartof Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift, 1990-05, Vol.115 (21), p.809-812
issn 0012-0472
language ger
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79772519
source MEDLINE; Thieme Connect Journals
subjects Abdomen - pathology
Biopsy, Needle - instrumentation
Biopsy, Needle - methods
Cytodiagnosis - instrumentation
Cytodiagnosis - methods
False Negative Reactions
Humans
Reproducibility of Results
Retroperitoneal Space
Ultrasonography - methods
title Ultrasonically guided fine-needle puncture. The limits of the method in the abdomen and retroperitoneal space
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T20%3A56%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ultrasonically%20guided%20fine-needle%20puncture.%20The%20limits%20of%20the%20method%20in%20the%20abdomen%20and%20retroperitoneal%20space&rft.jtitle=Deutsche%20medizinische%20Wochenschrift&rft.au=Holtkamp,%20W&rft.date=1990-05-25&rft.volume=115&rft.issue=21&rft.spage=809&rft.epage=812&rft.pages=809-812&rft.issn=0012-0472&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E79772519%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79772519&rft_id=info:pmid/2187669&rfr_iscdi=true