OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical features and the diagnostic accuracy of office-based endoscopic incisional biopsy in patients with nasal cavity masses. STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic test assessment with chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From January 1997 to August 2006, preoperative diagnosis was achieved using endoscopic incisional biopsy in 521 patients. Cytopathologic and histologic findings were categorized as malignancy, benign neoplasm, or non-neoplastic lesion. Preoperative imaging was done in 462 patients (computed tomography: 438 cases; magnetic resonance imaging: 24 cases). We investigated the accuracy of endoscopic incisional biopsy and preoperative imaging by comparing it with pathologic results from tumor resection as the "gold standard." RESULTS: Most of the patients had unilateral nasal symptoms (e.g., nasal obstruction, unilateral epistaxis, unilateral facial pain), and the clinical symptoms were of little diagnostic value in the differentiation of tumor and inflammatory lesion. The sensitivity and specificity of endoscopic incisional biopsy were 43.7 and 98.9 percent, respectively, for the diagnosis of nasal cavity malignancies, and 78.2 and 96.2 percent, respectively, for the diagnosis of benign neoplasms. The sensitivity and specificity of preoperative imaging were 78.3 and 97.5 percent, respectively, for the diagnosis of nasal cavity malignancies and 66.4 and 86.3 percent, respectively, for the diagnosis of benign neoplasms. Combining the two modalities increased diagnostic accuracy in nasal cavity masses. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic incisional biopsy alone did not ensure accurate diagnosis of nasal cavity tumors, but in combination with preoperative imaging it was helpful for the diagnosis of nasal cavity malignancies. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical features and the diagnostic accuracy of office-based endoscopic incisional biopsy in patients with nasal cavity masses. STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic test assessment with chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From January 1997 to August 2006, preoperative diagnosis was achieved using endoscopic incisional biopsy in 521 patients. Cytopathologic and histologic findings were categorized as malignancy, benign neoplasm, or non-neoplastic lesion. Preoperative imaging was done in 462 patients (computed tomography: 438 cases; magnetic resonance imaging: 24 cases). We investigated the accuracy of endoscopic incisional biopsy and preoperative imaging by comparing it with pathologic results from tumor resection as the "gold standard." RESULTS: Most of the patients had unilateral nasal symptoms (e.g., nasal obstruction, unilateral epistaxis, unilateral facial pain), and the clinical symptoms were of little diagnostic value in the differentiation of tumor and inflammatory lesion. The sensitivity and specificity of endoscopic incisional biopsy were 43.7 and 98.9 percent, respectively, for the diagnosis of nasal cavity malignancies, and 78.2 and 96.2 percent, respectively, for the diagnosis of benign neoplasms. The sensitivity and specificity of preoperative imaging were 78.3 and 97.5 percent, respectively, for the diagnosis of nasal cavity malignancies and 66.4 and 86.3 percent, respectively, for the diagnosis of benign neoplasms. Combining the two modalities increased diagnostic accuracy in nasal cavity masses. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic incisional biopsy alone did not ensure accurate diagnosis of nasal cavity tumors, but in combination with preoperative imaging it was helpful for the diagnosis of nasal cavity malignancies. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Franklin Mariño-Sánchez; Gonzalo de Los Santos; Ana Giribet; Alejandra Aguirre; Javier Alonso; Daniel L Wansley; Ignacio Cobeta Journal: Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-03-16
Authors: S Ramkumar; S Ranjbar; S Ning; D Lal; C M Zwart; C P Wood; S M Weindling; T Wu; J R Mitchell; J Li; J M Hoxworth Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 3.825