F Laurent1, V Latrabe, B Vergier, P Michel. 1. Imagerie Médicale Radiologie Diagnostique et Thérapeutique, Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, Université de Bordeaux 2, Avenue de Magellan, F-33604 Pessac, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and complication rate of two different CT-guided transthoracic needle biopsy techniques: fine needle aspiration and an automated biopsy device. METHODS: Two consecutive series of respectively 125 (group A) and 98 (group B) biopsies performed using 20-22 gauge coaxial fine needle aspiration (group A) and an automated 19.5 gauge coaxial biopsy device (group B) were compared in terms of their accuracy and complication rate. RESULTS: Groups A and B included respectively 100 (80%) and 77 (79%) malignant lesions and 25 (20%) and 18 (21%) benign lesions. No significant difference was found between the two series concerning patients, lesions, and procedural variables. For a diagnosis of malignancy, a statistically significant difference in sensitivity was found (82.7% vs 97.4%) between results obtained with the automated biopsy device and fine needle aspiration respectively. For a diagnosis of malignancy, the false negative rate of the biopsy result was significantly higher (p <0.005) in group A (17%) than in group B (2.6%). For a specific diagnosis of benignity, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups (44% vs 26%) but the automated biopsy device provided fewer indeterminate cases. There was no difference between the two groups concerning the pneumothorax rate, which was 20% in group A and 15% in group B, or the hemoptysis rate, which was 2.4% in group A and 4% in group B. CONCLUSION: For a diagnosis of malignancy when a cytopathologist is not available on-site, automated biopsy devices provide a lower rate of false negative results and a similar complication rate to fine needle aspiration.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and complication rate of two different CT-guided transthoracic needle biopsy techniques: fine needle aspiration and an automated biopsy device. METHODS: Two consecutive series of respectively 125 (group A) and 98 (group B) biopsies performed using 20-22 gauge coaxial fine needle aspiration (group A) and an automated 19.5 gauge coaxial biopsy device (group B) were compared in terms of their accuracy and complication rate. RESULTS: Groups A and B included respectively 100 (80%) and 77 (79%) malignant lesions and 25 (20%) and 18 (21%) benign lesions. No significant difference was found between the two series concerning patients, lesions, and procedural variables. For a diagnosis of malignancy, a statistically significant difference in sensitivity was found (82.7% vs 97.4%) between results obtained with the automated biopsy device and fine needle aspiration respectively. For a diagnosis of malignancy, the false negative rate of the biopsy result was significantly higher (p <0.005) in group A (17%) than in group B (2.6%). For a specific diagnosis of benignity, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups (44% vs 26%) but the automated biopsy device provided fewer indeterminate cases. There was no difference between the two groups concerning the pneumothorax rate, which was 20% in group A and 15% in group B, or the hemoptysis rate, which was 2.4% in group A and 4% in group B. CONCLUSION: For a diagnosis of malignancy when a cytopathologist is not available on-site, automated biopsy devices provide a lower rate of false negative results and a similar complication rate to fine needle aspiration.
Authors: A Manhire; M Charig; C Clelland; F Gleeson; R Miller; H Moss; K Pointon; C Richardson; E Sawicka Journal: Thorax Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 9.139