Efficacy of CEUS-guided biopsy for thoracic and pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Zhe Sun, Xuejiao Yu, Jiaojiao Ma, Tongtong Zhou, Bo Zhang
{"title":"Efficacy of CEUS-guided biopsy for thoracic and pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Zhe Sun, Xuejiao Yu, Jiaojiao Ma, Tongtong Zhou, Bo Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s12880-025-01700-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compares the success rate, diagnostic accuracy, and safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided biopsy versus conventional ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy for thoracic and pulmonary lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted. The primary outcomes included success rate and diagnostic accuracy, and the secondary outcome was the odds ratio of adverse effects. A random-effects meta-analysis pooled the data, with heterogeneity assessed by I² and publication bias evaluated using Egger's test and funnel plot analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm result robustness. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies with 3,459 patients were included. CEUS-guided biopsy demonstrated higher success rate (99.18%, 95% CI: 98.00-99.90%) and diagnostic accuracy (95.96%, 95% CI: 94.84-96.96%) than US-guided biopsy (success rate: 97.26%, 95% CI: 95.45-98.68%; diagnostic accuracy: 85.87%, 95% CI: 82.05-89.31%). Complications were more frequent in the US-guided group, with an odds ratio of 1.65 (95% CI: 1.15-2.37). Heterogeneity was low, and publication bias was minimal, except for diagnostic accuracy in the US group. Sensitivity analysis confirmed result robustness.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with conventional ultrasound, CEUS-guided biopsy demonstrates a comparable success rate, superior diagnostic accuracy, and a lower incidence of complications, underscoring its clinical value as a preferred approach for thoracic and pulmonary lesion assessment.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>This study was registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024608627.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":9020,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Imaging","volume":"25 1","pages":"158"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12070642/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-025-01700-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study compares the success rate, diagnostic accuracy, and safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided biopsy versus conventional ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy for thoracic and pulmonary lesions.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted. The primary outcomes included success rate and diagnostic accuracy, and the secondary outcome was the odds ratio of adverse effects. A random-effects meta-analysis pooled the data, with heterogeneity assessed by I² and publication bias evaluated using Egger's test and funnel plot analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm result robustness. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

Results: Sixteen studies with 3,459 patients were included. CEUS-guided biopsy demonstrated higher success rate (99.18%, 95% CI: 98.00-99.90%) and diagnostic accuracy (95.96%, 95% CI: 94.84-96.96%) than US-guided biopsy (success rate: 97.26%, 95% CI: 95.45-98.68%; diagnostic accuracy: 85.87%, 95% CI: 82.05-89.31%). Complications were more frequent in the US-guided group, with an odds ratio of 1.65 (95% CI: 1.15-2.37). Heterogeneity was low, and publication bias was minimal, except for diagnostic accuracy in the US group. Sensitivity analysis confirmed result robustness.

Conclusion: Compared with conventional ultrasound, CEUS-guided biopsy demonstrates a comparable success rate, superior diagnostic accuracy, and a lower incidence of complications, underscoring its clinical value as a preferred approach for thoracic and pulmonary lesion assessment.

Systematic review registration: This study was registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024608627.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

超声造影引导下活检对胸部和肺部病变的疗效:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:本研究比较对比增强超声(CEUS)引导下活检与常规超声(US)引导下活检对胸部和肺部病变的成功率、诊断准确性和安全性。方法:系统检索PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane Library。主要结局包括成功率和诊断准确性,次要结局是不良反应的优势比。随机效应荟萃分析汇集了数据,用I²评估异质性,用Egger检验和漏斗图分析评估发表偏倚。进行敏感性分析以确认结果的稳健性。采用亚组分析和元回归来探讨异质性的来源。结果:纳入16项研究,3,459例患者。超声造影引导下活检的成功率(99.18%,95% CI: 98.00-99.90%)和诊断准确性(95.96%,95% CI: 94.84-96.96%)均高于超声引导下活检(成功率:97.26%,95% CI: 95.45-98.68%;诊断正确率:85.87%,95% CI: 82.05 ~ 89.31%)。美导组并发症更为频繁,优势比为1.65 (95% CI: 1.15-2.37)。异质性低,除了美国组的诊断准确性外,发表偏倚最小。敏感性分析证实了结果的稳健性。结论:与常规超声相比,超声造影引导下的活检成功率相当,诊断准确性高,并发症发生率低,强调了其作为胸部和肺部病变评估的首选方法的临床价值。系统评价注册:本研究在PROSPERO注册,注册号为CRD42024608627。临床试验号:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Imaging
BMC Medical Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
198
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Imaging is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the development, evaluation, and use of imaging techniques and image processing tools to diagnose and manage disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信