PubMed · 4792123
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P A Mousseau, M C Mousseau-Brodu. 1973. [Abdominal actinomycosis].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4792123/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In a German cohort of 661 melanoma patients the performance, costs and survival benefits of staging methods (history and physical examination; chest X-ray; ultrasonography of the abdomen; high resolution sonography of the peripheral lymph nodes) were assessed at initial staging and during follow-up of stage I/II+III disease. At initial staging, 74% (23 out of 31) of synchronous metastases were first detected by physical examination followed by sonography of the lymph nodes revealing 16% (5 out of 31). Other imaging methods were less efficient (Chest X-ray: one out of 31; sonography of abdomen: two out of 31). Nearly 24% of all 127 first recurrences and 18% of 73 second recurrences developed in patients not participating in the follow-up programme. In follow-up patients detection of first or second recurrence were attributed to history and physical examination on a routine visit in 47 and 52% recurrences, respectively, and to routine imaging procedures in 21 and 17% of cases, respectively. Lymph node sonography was the most successful technical staging procedure indicating 13% of first relapses, but comprised 24% of total costs of follow-up in stage I/II. Routine imaging comprised nearly 50% of total costs for follow-up in stage I/II and in stage III. The mode of detecting a relapse ('patient vs. doctor-diagnosed' or 'symptomatic vs asymptomatic') did not significantly influence patients overall survival. Taken together, imaging procedures for routine follow-up in stage I/II and stage III melanoma patients were inefficient and not cost-efficient.
BACKGROUND: Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as a diagnostic adjunct for small pancreatic lesions and abdominal and mediastinal lymph node diseases. DESIGN: During a 21-month period, we performed 179 EUS-FNAs in 166 consecutive patients; these data are the subject of this study. An average of 2.6 needle passes were obtained and aspiration was performed most commonly in the pancreas (162 cases, 91%). The FNA smears were reviewed using six diagnostic categories (negative for malignancy/nondiagnostic [NND], atypia, suspicious for malignancy, benign tumor/cyst, neuroendocrine neoplasm [NEN], and carcinoma). The review diagnosis was correlated with the histologic diagnosis made on resection or surgical biopsy specimens in 70 cases. Up to 17 months of clinical follow-up were sought for the cases with a negative or inconclusive FNA diagnosis and no diagnostic tissue confirmation (81 cases). RESULTS: The review FNA diagnoses were as follows: NND (49 cases), atypia (17 cases), suspicious for malignancy (12 cases), benign tumor/cyst excluding NEN (10 cases), NEN (6 cases), carcinoma (85 cases). Follow-up methods included resection (49 cases), surgical biopsy (21 cases), repeat FNA or brushing cytology (28 cases), and clinical follow-up only (81 cases). Of the 49 NND cases, 23 (47%) had positive follow-up results (i.e., false-negative diagnosis) that were confirmed by tissue diagnosis (resection/surgical biopsy in 11 cases [48%] and repeat FNA/brushing in 12 cases [52%]). These included pancreatic/ampullary adenocarcinoma in 20 cases, esophageal squamous carcinoma in 1 case, and NEN in 2 cases. Follow-up also revealed carcinoma in all 12 suspicious cases and 13 pancreatic adenocarcinomas and 1 microcystic adenoma in 14 of the 17 atypical cases. Overall, repeat computed tomography (CT)-guided FNA samples yielded a definite diagnosis in four atypical and seven NND cases, whereas EUS-FNA results provided a definite diagnosis in three cases in which CT-guided FNA failed and in two cases in which ampullary biopsy failed. No false-positive cases were identified. The false-negative rate due to inadequate sampling was 13.2%. Sensitivity (including cases with inadequate cellularity and nondiagnostic aspirates) was 81.7% and specificity was 100%. None of the factors evaluated (lesion characteristics, aspiration site, and tumor type) significantly influenced diagnostic results. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA is a valuable diagnostic and staging tool with high specificity and sensitivity. Negative or nondiagnostic cases on EUS-FNA require further diagnostic work for a definitive diagnosis when clinical or radiographic findings do not correlate with the FNA results.