Yi Jun Yang1, Timothy A Damron. 1. Department of Pathology, Upstate Medical University, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, USA. YYang@oneidahealthcare.org
Abstract
CONTEXT: Needle core biopsy has been reported to be the choice of biopsy for musculoskeletal tumors. Fine-needle aspiration, on the other hand, has been widely accepted for nonmusculoskeletal tumors, but is only used in selected medical centers for musculoskeletal tumors. While fine-needle aspiration appears to have advantages to needle core biopsy in the aspects of simplicity and cost, the diagnostic accuracy should be the most critical parameter in determining the choice of biopsy. However, few studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of these 2 biopsy methods have been performed. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration and needle core biopsy in musculoskeletal tumors. DESIGN: Prospective study was performed in patients aged 10 years or older. Diagnostic accuracy was compared in 50 consecutive concurrent needle core biopsies and fine-needle aspirations of musculoskeletal lesions. RESULTS: For primary musculoskeletal lesions, fine-needle aspiration achieved a diagnostic accuracy rate of 88% for nature of lesion, 64% for specific diagnosis, 78% for histologic grading, and 74% for histologic typing. Needle core biopsy achieved an accuracy rate of 93% for nature of lesions, 83% for specific diagnosis, 83% for histologic grading, and 90% for histologic typing. Both biopsy methods have a higher diagnostic accuracy rate for high-grade tumors than for low-grade or benign lesions in determining the nature, specific diagnosis, and histologic grading. CONCLUSIONS: The needle core biopsy has a higher diagnostic accuracy than fine-needle aspiration in all aspects, including determining the nature of the tumor, establishing the histologic type and grade, and achieving a specific diagnosis.
CONTEXT: Needle core biopsy has been reported to be the choice of biopsy for musculoskeletal tumors. Fine-needle aspiration, on the other hand, has been widely accepted for nonmusculoskeletal tumors, but is only used in selected medical centers for musculoskeletal tumors. While fine-needle aspiration appears to have advantages to needle core biopsy in the aspects of simplicity and cost, the diagnostic accuracy should be the most critical parameter in determining the choice of biopsy. However, few studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of these 2 biopsy methods have been performed. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration and needle core biopsy in musculoskeletal tumors. DESIGN: Prospective study was performed in patients aged 10 years or older. Diagnostic accuracy was compared in 50 consecutive concurrent needle core biopsies and fine-needle aspirations of musculoskeletal lesions. RESULTS: For primary musculoskeletal lesions, fine-needle aspiration achieved a diagnostic accuracy rate of 88% for nature of lesion, 64% for specific diagnosis, 78% for histologic grading, and 74% for histologic typing. Needle core biopsy achieved an accuracy rate of 93% for nature of lesions, 83% for specific diagnosis, 83% for histologic grading, and 90% for histologic typing. Both biopsy methods have a higher diagnostic accuracy rate for high-grade tumors than for low-grade or benign lesions in determining the nature, specific diagnosis, and histologic grading. CONCLUSIONS: The needle core biopsy has a higher diagnostic accuracy than fine-needle aspiration in all aspects, including determining the nature of the tumor, establishing the histologic type and grade, and achieving a specific diagnosis.
Authors: Gian L Natali; Guglielmo Paolantonio; Rodolfo Fruhwirth; Giuseppe Alvaro; George K Parapatt; Paolo Toma'; Massimo Rollo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Eugenio Rimondi; Eric L Staals; Costantino Errani; Giuseppe Bianchi; Roberto Casadei; Marco Alberghini; Maria Cristina Malaguti; Giuseppe Rossi; Stefano Durante; Mario Mercuri Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Sina Kasraeian; Daniel C Allison; Elke R Ahlmann; Alexander N Fedenko; Lawrence R Menendez Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Odion Binitie; Shawn Tejiram; Sheila Conway; David Cheong; H Thomas Temple; G Douglas Letson Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Hyun-Joon Shin; Joao G Amaral; Derek Armstrong; Peter G Chait; Michael J Temple; Philip John; Charles R Smith; Glenn Taylor; Bairbre L Connolly Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2007-02-14
Authors: Annie D R Li; Yang Liu; Jeffrey Plott; Lei Chen; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Albert Shih Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.538