Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38588693›Full record

ArticleUltraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980)2025

The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in percutaneous biopsy of retroperitoneal masses.

Ehsan Safai Zadeh, Mathis Görg, Christian Görg, Helmut Prosch, Corinna Trenker, Christina Carolin Westhoff, Christoph F Dietrich, Nils Raab, Amjad Alhyari, Katharina Huber and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Ehsan Safai ZadehDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9775-3989
Mathis GörgInterdisciplinary Centre of Ultrasound Diagnostics, Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Clinical Infectiology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg Campus Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Christian GörgInterdisciplinary Centre of Ultrasound Diagnostics, Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Clinical Infectiology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg Campus Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Helmut ProschDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6119-6364
Corinna TrenkerHaematology, Oncology and Immunology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg Campus Marburg, Marburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4573-7802
Christina Carolin WesthoffInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg, Campus Marburg, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Christoph F DietrichDepartment General Internal Medicine, Kliniken Hirslanden Beau Site, Salem und Permanence, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6015-6347
Nils RaabGeneral internal medicine and gastroenterology, Westmecklenburg Klinikum Helene von Bulow GmbH, Ludwigslust, Germany.
Amjad AlhyariInterdisciplinary Centre of Ultrasound Diagnostics, Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Clinical Infectiology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg Campus Marburg, Marburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1308-988X
Katharina HuberDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Svitlana PochepniaDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria.
Michael WeberDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria.
Hajo FindeisenDepartment for Internal Medicine, Red Cross Hospital Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0180-5452

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic yield of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided biopsy of retroperitoneal masses (RMs). MATERIALS AND

methodsBetween 2006 and 2023, 87 patients presented at our US center for biopsy of an RM. In all biopsies, CEUS was performed prior to the intervention. The technical success rate of biopsy, the presence of diagnostic tissue in solid tumor biopsy samples, the accuracy of the biopsy and the occurrence of post-interventional complications were evaluated.

resultsA US-guided biopsy could be conducted in 84/87 cases (96.6%). In 3/87 cases (3.4%), US-guided biopsy was impossible because the planned needle path was obstructed by vital structures. Of 84 lesions, 80 (95.2%) were solid lesions, and 4 (4.8%) were lesions containing fluid. In all solid tumors, 80/80 (100%), diagnostic vital tissue was successfully obtained. CEUS-guided biopsy showed a sensitivity of 93.2%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, a negative predictive value of 72.2%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 94.2% for the differentiation between malignant and benign RMs. In one of the 84 cases (1.2%), there was a complication of postinterventional abdominal pain.

conclusionPercutaneous CEUS-guided biopsy is a safe procedure with a high diagnostic yield and a low complication rate.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaImage EnhancementImage-Guided BiopsyRetroperitoneal NeoplasmsUltrasonography, InterventionalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhospholipidsRetroperitoneal Spacecontrast agent BR1Contrast MediaPhospholipidsSulfur Hexafluoride

Identifiers

PMID38588693
PMCPMC11798643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.