H-J Eom1, J H Lee2, M-S Ko3, Y J Choi1, R G Yoon1, K J Cho4, S Y Nam5, J H Baek1. 1. From the Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (H.-J.E., J.H.L., Y.J.C., R.G.Y., J.H.B.). 2. From the Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (H.-J.E., J.H.L., Y.J.C., R.G.Y., J.H.B.) jeonghlee@amc.seoul.kr. 3. Departments of Health Medicine (M.-S.K.). 4. Pathology (K.J.C.). 5. Otolaryngology (S.Y.N.), Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diagnostic test accuracy studies for ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy have shown inconclusive results due to their heterogenous study designs. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration versus ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy for detecting malignant tumors of the salivary gland and for the tissue-specific diagnosis of salivary gland tumors in a single tertiary hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and informed consent was waived. Four hundred twelve patients who underwent ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (n = 155) or ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy (n = 257) with subsequent surgical confirmation or clinical follow-up were enrolled. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy regarding malignant salivary gland tumors and the correct tissue-specific diagnosis of benign and malignant tumors. We also tested the difference between these procedures according to the operator's experience and lesion characteristics. RESULTS: The inconclusive rates of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy were 19% and 4%, respectively (P < .001). The overall accuracy of ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy for diagnosing malignant tumors was significantly higher than that of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (P = .024). The correct tissue-specific diagnosis rates of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy were 95% versus 97% for benign tumors (P = .648) and 67% versus 80% for malignant tumors (P = .310). Trainees showed significantly lower accuracy with ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration than with ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy for diagnosing malignant tumors (P = .021). There was no difference between the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy according to the internal composition of the lesions. There were no complications requiring intervention or hospitalization in our patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy is superior to ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in detecting and characterizing malignant tumors of the salivary gland and could emerge as the diagnostic method of choice for patients presenting with a salivary gland mass.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diagnostic test accuracy studies for ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy have shown inconclusive results due to their heterogenous study designs. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration versus ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy for detecting malignant tumors of the salivary gland and for the tissue-specific diagnosis of salivary gland tumors in a single tertiary hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and informed consent was waived. Four hundred twelve patients who underwent ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (n = 155) or ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy (n = 257) with subsequent surgical confirmation or clinical follow-up were enrolled. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy regarding malignant salivary gland tumors and the correct tissue-specific diagnosis of benign and malignant tumors. We also tested the difference between these procedures according to the operator's experience and lesion characteristics. RESULTS: The inconclusive rates of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy were 19% and 4%, respectively (P < .001). The overall accuracy of ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy for diagnosing malignant tumors was significantly higher than that of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (P = .024). The correct tissue-specific diagnosis rates of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy were 95% versus 97% for benign tumors (P = .648) and 67% versus 80% for malignant tumors (P = .310). Trainees showed significantly lower accuracy with ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration than with ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy for diagnosing malignant tumors (P = .021). There was no difference between the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy according to the internal composition of the lesions. There were no complications requiring intervention or hospitalization in our patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy is superior to ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration in detecting and characterizing malignant tumors of the salivary gland and could emerge as the diagnostic method of choice for patients presenting with a salivary gland mass.
Authors: Roberto Izquierdo; Mona R Arekat; Paul E Knudson; Karen F Kartun; Kamal Khurana; Kara Kort; Patricia J Numann Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Robert L Schmidt; Jolanta D Jedrzkiewicz; Rebecca J Allred; Shotaro Matsuoka; Benjamin L Witt Journal: Head Neck Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: David C Howlett; Leon J Menezes; Khari Lewis; Andrew B Moody; Nick Violaris; Michael D Williams Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: K Balakrishnan; B Castling; J McMahon; J Imrie; K M Feeley; A J Parker; P D Bull; A Johnston Journal: Surgeon Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.392
Authors: Katharine Julia Hurry; Dilhara Karunaratne; Suzanne Westley; Alessandra Booth; Keith C R B Ramesar; Ting Ting Zhang; Michael Williams; David C Howlett Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michele Lorenzon; Erica Spina; Francesco Tulipano Di Franco; Ivan Giovannini; Salvatore De Vita; Alen Zabotti Journal: Open Access Rheumatol Date: 2022-09-01