-
A total of 174 patients with puncture-sampled lesions under ultrasound guidance were enrolled in this study. Fifty-nine cases were excluded due to incomplete sampling, leaving 115 cases for analysis. Puncture samples from the 115 participants were tested using culture, smears, Xpert, and histopathology. Of the 115 participants, 72 (62.61%) were male and 43 (37.39%) were female, whereas 46 (40%) were HIV-positive and 69 (60%) HIV-negative (Table 1, Figure 1). Liquid culture of the 115 puncture samples revealed 42 positive cases (36.52%), of which 39 were positive for MPT64 (confirmed TB), and 73 cases (63.48%) were culture-negative. CRS led to a clinical diagnosis of TB in 87 of the 115 patients (75.65%) and of non-TB in 28 cases (24.35%; 1 case of Burkitt lymphoma, 4 cases of NTM, 2 cases of reactive hyperplasia, 1 case of epididymitis, 13 cases of lymphadenitis, 1 case of Staphylococcus aureus infection, 3 cases of lymphoma, and 3 cases of fungal infection).
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants
Characteristics No. of total case No. of TB cases No. of case without TB P value Gender, n (%) Male 72/115 (62.61) 53/87 (60.92) 19/28 (67.86) 0.65 Female 43/115 (37.39) 34/87 (39.08) 9/28 (32.14) Age (Median [IQR]) 33 (27−44) 25 (31−43) 42 (30−55) 0.22 HIV, n (%) Positive 46/115 (40.00) 32/87 (36.78) 14/28 (50.00) 0.27 Negative 69/115 (60.00) 55/87 (63.22) 14/28 (50.00) Lymphatic diameter (mm) (Median [IQR]) 31 (21−45) 32 (22−45) 28 (18−49) 0.39 Pus volume (mL) (Median [IQR]) 0 (0−1) 0 (0−1) 0 (0−0) 0.92 Sample length (mm) (Median [IQR]) 25 (16−30) 25 (18−30) 20 (15−30) 0.14 Note. TB, tuberculosis; IQR, interquartile range; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus. -
When CRS was used as the reference standard, detection using histopathological examination had the highest sensitivity (85.06%, 95% CI: 76.10%–91.05%), followed by Xpert (70.11%, 95% CI: 59.81%–78.72%), smear (51.72%, 95% CI: 41.38%–61.93%), and culture (44.83%, 95% CI: 34.82%–55.28%), but modestly lower specificity (82.14%, 95% CI: 64.41%–92.12%) than the other methods (Table 2). McNemar’s test was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the four diagnostic methods using CRS as the reference standard. Culture (χ2 = 39.71, P < 0.001), smear (χ2 = 33.80, P < 0.001), and Xpert (χ2 = 21.33, P < 0.001) showed statistical differences compared with CRS, but no significant difference was reached compared with pathological examination (χ2 = 2.72, P = 0.099). Further, the diagnostic concordance between CRS and the four diagnostic methods was evaluated using a Kappa test. CRS showed modest but significant consistency with culture (Kappa = 0.221, Z = 3.261, P < 0.001), smear (Kappa = 0.279, Z = 3.828, P < 0.001), and Xpert (Kappa = 0.511, Z = 6.144, P < 0.001), as well as a higher degree of consistency with pathological evaluation (Kappa = 0.613, Z = 6.670, P < 0.001).
Table 2. Contribution of different methods for detection of EPTB defined by CRS
Method Result TB (n) Non-TB (n) Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) Specificity (%) (95% CI) PPV (%) NPV (%) Culture Positive 39 3 44.83 89.29 92.86 34.25 Negative 48 25 (34.82−55.28) (72.80−96.29) Smear Positive 45 3 51.72 89.29 93.75 37.31 Negative 42 25 (41.38−61.93) (72.80−96.29) Xpert Positive 61 1 70.11 96.43 98.39 50.94 Negative 26 27 (59.81−78.72) (82.29−99.82) Pathology Positive 74 5 85.06 82.14 93.67 63.89 Negative 13 23 (76.10−91.05) (64.41−92.12) Note. CRS, composite reference standard; EPTB, extrapulmonary tuberculosis; CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value. A similar trend was observed when liquid culture was used as the standard. TB histopathological detection had superior sensitivity (92.86%, 95% CI: 80.99%–97.54%), which was higher than that of Xpert (83.33%, 95% CI: 69.40%–91.68%) and smear (66.67%, 95% CI: 51.55%–78.99%). However, the specificity of all tests was low, ranging from 45.21% to 72.60% (Table 3). Further, McNemar’s test showed significant differences between culture and both Xpert (χ2 = 10.62, P = 0.001) and pathology (χ2 = 31.84, P < 0.001) but no significant difference with smear (χ2 = 0.74, P = 0.391). Diagnostic concordance between liquid culture and the other three diagnostic methods was evaluated using a Kappa test. Culture showed statistical consistency with smear (Kappa = 0.381, Z = 4.112, P < 0.001) and Xpert (Kappa = 0.421, Z = 4.801, P < 0.001), but a lower degree of consistency with pathology (Kappa = 0.321, Z = 4.238, P < 0.001).
Table 3. Potential contribution of supplementary diagnostic tests of the CRS method to diagnosis with culture negative EPTB biopsy samples
Method Result Culture + (n) Culture − (n) Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) Specificity (%) (95% CI) PPV (%) NPV (%) Smear Positive 28 20 66.67 72.60 58.33 79.10 Negative 14 53 (51.55−78.99) (61.44−81.51) Xpert Positive 35 27 83.33 63.01 56.45 86.79 Negative 7 46 (69.40−91.68) (51.55−73.18) Pathology Positive 39 40 92.86 45.21 49.37 91.67 Negative 3 33 (80.99−97.54) (34.31−56.58) Note. CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value. Culture +, Culture positive; Cuture −, Culture negative. -
To further study the utility of lesion pathology in diagnosing EPTB, the results of the histopathological assessment were combined with those from culture, smear, and Xpert. In the combined diagnostic criteria, a positive result was determined when one of the test results was positive, whereas a negative result required both test results to be negative. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined tests are presented in Table 4. The combination of pathological analysis and Xpert led to a sensitivity of 90.80% and specificity of 82.14% (Table 4). Sensitivity was highest when the specificity of the combined detection methods was equal at 82.14%. In addition, we found that the combination of the four methods led to an increase in detection sensitivity to 91.95% (Table 4).
Table 4. Different detection methods combined with pathology to diagnose EPTB in puncture samples
Method Result TB (n) Non-TB (n) Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) Specificity (%) (95% CI) PPV (%) PNV (%) Culture+Pathology Positive 77 5 88.51 82.14 93.90 69.70 Negative 10 23 (80.12−93.64) (64.41−92.12) Smear+Pathology Positive 76 5 87.36 82.14 93.83 67.65 Negative 11 23 (78.76−92.79) (64.41−92.12) Xpert+Pathology Positive 79 5 90.80 82.14 94.05 74.19 Negative 8 23 (82.89−95.27) (64.41−92.12) Culture+Smear+Xpert Positive 66 4 75.86 85.71 94.29 53.33 Negative 21 24 (65.90−83.64) (68.51−94.30) Cuture+Smear+
Xpert+PathologyPositive 80 5 91.95 82.14 94.12 76.67 Negative 7 23 (84.31−96.05) (64.41−92.12) Note. TB, tuberculosis; CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value. -
Higher detection rates were observed in the samples from the neck and axilla than in those from other sites. Among all methods, histopathological assessment resulted in the highest detection rate, followed by Xpert. Notably, the detection rates from histopathological assessment of neck, chest, and axillary lesions were 81.13% (43/53), 66.67% (4/6), and 92.86% (13/14), respectively (Table 5).
Table 5. Different detection methods performance in various puncture sites for the diagnosis of EPTB
Site Incidence of culture (%) Incidence of smear (%) Incidence of xpert (%) Incidence of pathology (%) Neck (n = 53) 23/53 (43.40) 25/53 (47.17) 36/53 (67.92) 43/53 (81.13) Chest (n = 6) 2/6 (33.33) 2/6 (33.33) 4/6 (66.67) 4/6 (66.67) Abdomen (n = 3) 1/3 (33.33) 2/3 (66.67) 2/3 (66.67) 3/3 (100.00) Armpit (n = 14) 7/14 (50.00) 10/14 (71.43) 11/14 (78.57) 13/14 (92.86) Joint (n = 6) 3/6 (50.00) 3/6 (50.00) 5/6 (66.67) 6/6 (100.00) Collarbone (n = 4) 2/4 (50.00) 3/4 (75.00) 2/4 (50.00) 4/4 (100.00)
doi: 10.3967/bes2024.017
Effectiveness of Histopathological Examination of Ultrasound-guided Puncture Biopsy Samples for Diagnosis of Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the diagnostic value of histopathological examination of ultrasound-guided puncture biopsy samples in extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB). Methods This study was conducted at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. A total of 115 patients underwent ultrasound-guided puncture biopsy, followed by MGIT 960 culture (culture), smear, GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), and histopathological examination. These assays were performed to evaluate their effectiveness in diagnosing EPTB in comparison to two different diagnostic criteria: liquid culture and composite reference standard (CRS). Results When CRS was used as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of culture, smear, Xpert, and histopathological examination were (44.83%, 89.29%), (51.72%, 89.29%), (70.11%, 96.43%), and (85.06%, 82.14%), respectively. Based on liquid culture tests, the sensitivity and specificity of smear, Xpert, and pathological examination were (66.67%, 72.60%), (83.33%, 63.01%), and (92.86%, 45.21%), respectively. Histopathological examination showed the highest sensitivity but lowest specificity. Further, we found that the combination of Xpert and histopathological examination showed a sensitivity of 90.80% and a specificity of 89.29%. Conclusion Ultrasound-guided puncture sampling is safe and effective for the diagnosis of EPTB. Compared with culture, smear, and Xpert, histopathological examination showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity. The combination of histopathology with Xpert showed the best performance characteristics. -
Key words:
- Extrapulmonary tuberculosis /
- Diagnosis /
- Biopsy /
- Histopathological examination /
- Puncture samples
The authors declare that the research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
&These authors contributed equally to this work.
注释:1) AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: 2) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: -
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants
Characteristics No. of total case No. of TB cases No. of case without TB P value Gender, n (%) Male 72/115 (62.61) 53/87 (60.92) 19/28 (67.86) 0.65 Female 43/115 (37.39) 34/87 (39.08) 9/28 (32.14) Age (Median [IQR]) 33 (27−44) 25 (31−43) 42 (30−55) 0.22 HIV, n (%) Positive 46/115 (40.00) 32/87 (36.78) 14/28 (50.00) 0.27 Negative 69/115 (60.00) 55/87 (63.22) 14/28 (50.00) Lymphatic diameter (mm) (Median [IQR]) 31 (21−45) 32 (22−45) 28 (18−49) 0.39 Pus volume (mL) (Median [IQR]) 0 (0−1) 0 (0−1) 0 (0−0) 0.92 Sample length (mm) (Median [IQR]) 25 (16−30) 25 (18−30) 20 (15−30) 0.14 Note. TB, tuberculosis; IQR, interquartile range; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus. Table 2. Contribution of different methods for detection of EPTB defined by CRS
Method Result TB (n) Non-TB (n) Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) Specificity (%) (95% CI) PPV (%) NPV (%) Culture Positive 39 3 44.83 89.29 92.86 34.25 Negative 48 25 (34.82−55.28) (72.80−96.29) Smear Positive 45 3 51.72 89.29 93.75 37.31 Negative 42 25 (41.38−61.93) (72.80−96.29) Xpert Positive 61 1 70.11 96.43 98.39 50.94 Negative 26 27 (59.81−78.72) (82.29−99.82) Pathology Positive 74 5 85.06 82.14 93.67 63.89 Negative 13 23 (76.10−91.05) (64.41−92.12) Note. CRS, composite reference standard; EPTB, extrapulmonary tuberculosis; CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value. Table 3. Potential contribution of supplementary diagnostic tests of the CRS method to diagnosis with culture negative EPTB biopsy samples
Method Result Culture + (n) Culture − (n) Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) Specificity (%) (95% CI) PPV (%) NPV (%) Smear Positive 28 20 66.67 72.60 58.33 79.10 Negative 14 53 (51.55−78.99) (61.44−81.51) Xpert Positive 35 27 83.33 63.01 56.45 86.79 Negative 7 46 (69.40−91.68) (51.55−73.18) Pathology Positive 39 40 92.86 45.21 49.37 91.67 Negative 3 33 (80.99−97.54) (34.31−56.58) Note. CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value. Culture +, Culture positive; Cuture −, Culture negative. Table 4. Different detection methods combined with pathology to diagnose EPTB in puncture samples
Method Result TB (n) Non-TB (n) Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) Specificity (%) (95% CI) PPV (%) PNV (%) Culture+Pathology Positive 77 5 88.51 82.14 93.90 69.70 Negative 10 23 (80.12−93.64) (64.41−92.12) Smear+Pathology Positive 76 5 87.36 82.14 93.83 67.65 Negative 11 23 (78.76−92.79) (64.41−92.12) Xpert+Pathology Positive 79 5 90.80 82.14 94.05 74.19 Negative 8 23 (82.89−95.27) (64.41−92.12) Culture+Smear+Xpert Positive 66 4 75.86 85.71 94.29 53.33 Negative 21 24 (65.90−83.64) (68.51−94.30) Cuture+Smear+
Xpert+PathologyPositive 80 5 91.95 82.14 94.12 76.67 Negative 7 23 (84.31−96.05) (64.41−92.12) Note. TB, tuberculosis; CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value. Table 5. Different detection methods performance in various puncture sites for the diagnosis of EPTB
Site Incidence of culture (%) Incidence of smear (%) Incidence of xpert (%) Incidence of pathology (%) Neck (n = 53) 23/53 (43.40) 25/53 (47.17) 36/53 (67.92) 43/53 (81.13) Chest (n = 6) 2/6 (33.33) 2/6 (33.33) 4/6 (66.67) 4/6 (66.67) Abdomen (n = 3) 1/3 (33.33) 2/3 (66.67) 2/3 (66.67) 3/3 (100.00) Armpit (n = 14) 7/14 (50.00) 10/14 (71.43) 11/14 (78.57) 13/14 (92.86) Joint (n = 6) 3/6 (50.00) 3/6 (50.00) 5/6 (66.67) 6/6 (100.00) Collarbone (n = 4) 2/4 (50.00) 3/4 (75.00) 2/4 (50.00) 4/4 (100.00) -
[1] WHO, World Health Organization Global TB Report. 2022. [2] Steingart KR, Henry M, Ng V, et al. Fluorescence versus conventional sputum smear microscopy for tuberculosis: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis, 2006; 6, 570−81. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70578-3 [3] Otu J, Antonio M, Cheung YB, et al. Comparative evaluation of BACTEC MGIT 960 with BACTEC 9000 MB and LJ for isolation of mycobacteria in the Gambia. J Infect Dev Ctries, 2008; 2, 200−5. [4] Peng J, Song J, Wang F, et al. Harnessing big data to optimize an algorithm for rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in a real-world setting. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2021; 11, 650163. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.650163 [5] Lee JY. Diagnosis and treatment of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul), 2015; 78, 47−55. doi: 10.4046/trd.2015.78.2.47 [6] Mechal Y, Benaissa E, El Mrimar N, et al. Evaluation of GeneXpert MTB/RIF system performances in the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. BMC Infect Dis, 2019; 19, 1069. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4687-7 [7] Bhatnagar R, Corcoran JP, Maldonado F, et al. Advanced medical interventions in pleural disease. Eur Respir Rev, 2016; 25, 199−213. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0020-2016 [8] Sun WW, Zhou YM, Yang C, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound guided pleural biopsy improves diagnostic confidence for pleural based lesions: a 3-year prospective study. BMC Pulm Med, 2021; 21, 224. doi: 10.1186/s12890-021-01583-7 [9] Fu Y, Zhang YY, Cui LG, et al. Ultrasound-guided biopsy of pleural-based pulmonary lesions by injection of contrast-enhancing drugs. Front Pharmacol, 2019; 10, 960. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00960 [10] Vadwai V, Boehme C, Nabeta P, et al. Xpert MTB/RIF: a new pillar in diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis? J Clin Microbiol, 2011; 49, 2540−5. [11] Marais S, Thwaites G, Schoeman JF, et al. Tuberculous meningitis: a uniform case definition for use in clinical research. Lancet Infect Dis, 2010; 10, 803−12. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70138-9 [12] Christopher DJ, Schumacher SG, Michael JS, et al. Performance of Xpert MTB/RIF on pleural tissue for the diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis. Eur Respir J, 2013; 42, 1427−9. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00103213 [13] Sharma M, Agarwal S, Wadhwa N, et al. Spectrum of cytomorphology of tuberculous lymphadenitis and changes during anti-tubercular treatment. Cytopathology, 2007; 18, 180−3. [14] Elbrolosy AM, El Helbawy RH, Mansour OM, et al. Diagnostic utility of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay versus conventional methods for diagnosis of pulmonary and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis. BMC Microbiol, 2021; 21, 144. doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02210-5 [15] van der Kuyp F, Mahan CS. Prolonged positivity of sputum smears with negative cultures during treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 2012; 16, 1663−7. doi: 10.5588/ijtld.12.0238 [16] Pan XF, Yang SF, Deighton MA, et al. A comprehensive evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF assay with bronchoalveolar lavage fluid as a single test or combined with conventional assays for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in China: a two-center prospective study. Front Microbiol, 2018; 9, 444. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00444 [17] Yoo SD, Abebe G, Yoo JE, et al. Diagnostic value of Xpert MTB/RIF assay on pleural tissue obtained via closed pleural biopsy among persons with presumptive tuberculous pleuritis. Afr J Thorac Crit Care Med, 2021; 27, 10. doi: 10.7196/AJTCCM.2021.v27i1.120 [18] Gao S, Wang C, Yu X, et al. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra enhanced tuberculous pleurisy diagnosis for patients with unexplained exudative pleural effusion who underwent a pleural biopsy via thoracoscopy: a prospective cohort study. Int J Infect Dis, 2021; 106, 370−5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.011 [19] Koegelenberg CFN, Irusen EM, von Groote-Bidlingmaier F, et al. The utility of ultrasound-guided thoracentesis and pleural biopsy in undiagnosed pleural exudates. Thorax, 2015; 70, 995−7. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206567 [20] Du JH, Huang ZK, Luo Q, et al. Rapid diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis by Xpert MTB/RIF assay using pleural biopsy and pleural fluid specimens. J Res Med Sci, 2015; 20, 26−31. [21] Bankar S, Set R, Sharma D, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay in extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Indian J Med Microbiol, 2018; 36, 357−63. doi: 10.4103/ijmm.IJMM_18_173 [22] Tadesse M, Abebe G, Abdissa K, et al. GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of tuberculous lymphadenitis on concentrated fine needle aspirates in high tuberculosis burden settings. PLoS One, 2015; 10, e0137471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137471 [23] Tomaz A, Raboni S M, Kussen G, et al. The Xpert® MTB/RIF diagnostic test for pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients: benefits and experiences over 2 years in different clinical contexts. PLoS One, 2021; 16, e0247185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247185 [24] Bojang AL, Mendy FS, Tientcheu LD, et al. Comparison of TB-LAMP, GeneXpert MTB/RIF and culture for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in the Gambia. J Infect, 2016; 72, 332−7. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.11.011 [25] Dorman SE, Schumacher SG, Alland D, et al. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance: a prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Infect Dis, 2018; 18, 76−84. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30691-6