Akito Hata1, Nobuyuki Katakami2, Shigeki Nanjo2, Chiyuki Okuda2, Reiko Kaji2, Yukihiro Imai3. 1. Division of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation Hospital, Kobe, Japan a-hata@fbri.org. 2. Division of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation Hospital, Kobe, Japan. 3. Department of Clinical Pathology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe, Japan.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to compare successful rate, failure reasons, and complications among procedures of histological rebiopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of histologically rebiopsied cases with non-small cell lung cancer. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven histological rebiopsies were performed in: 86 (77%) lung; 11 (10%) lymph node; 5 (5%) pleura; 4 (4%) liver; 2 (2%) muscle; 2 (2%) adrenal gland; and 1 (1%) rib. Successful rate by computed tomography-guided biopsy (CTGB), transbronchial biopsy (TBB), and ultrasound-guided biopsy were 86% (48/56), 90% (28/31), and 100% (24/24), respectively. Reasons for rebiopsy failure by CTGB were no/insufficient malignant cells (n=5) and pneumothorax (n=3), and those by TBB were no/insufficient malignant cells (n=2) and bleeding (n=1). Severe complications (≥grade 3): one grade 3 pneumothorax and one grade 4 air embolization were observed in two (2%, 2/111) cases receiving CTGB. CONCLUSION: Rebiopsy of histological samples can be highly successful and feasible by optimal procedural selection. Copyright
AIM: The aim of the present study was to compare successful rate, failure reasons, and complications among procedures of histological rebiopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of histologically rebiopsied cases with non-small cell lung cancer. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven histological rebiopsies were performed in: 86 (77%) lung; 11 (10%) lymph node; 5 (5%) pleura; 4 (4%) liver; 2 (2%) muscle; 2 (2%) adrenal gland; and 1 (1%) rib. Successful rate by computed tomography-guided biopsy (CTGB), transbronchial biopsy (TBB), and ultrasound-guided biopsy were 86% (48/56), 90% (28/31), and 100% (24/24), respectively. Reasons for rebiopsy failure by CTGB were no/insufficient malignant cells (n=5) and pneumothorax (n=3), and those by TBB were no/insufficient malignant cells (n=2) and bleeding (n=1). Severe complications (≥grade 3): one grade 3 pneumothorax and one grade 4 air embolization were observed in two (2%, 2/111) cases receiving CTGB. CONCLUSION: Rebiopsy of histological samples can be highly successful and feasible by optimal procedural selection. Copyright
Authors: Susumu Kobayashi; Titus J Boggon; Tajhal Dayaram; Pasi A Jänne; Olivier Kocher; Matthew Meyerson; Bruce E Johnson; Michael J Eck; Daniel G Tenen; Balázs Halmos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; Jean-Charles Soria; Jonathan W Goldman; Heather A Wakelee; Shirish M Gadgeel; Andrea Varga; Vassiliki Papadimitrakopoulou; Benjamin J Solomon; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Rafal Dziadziuszko; Dara L Aisner; Robert C Doebele; Cathy Galasso; Edward B Garon; Rebecca S Heist; Jennifer Logan; Joel W Neal; Melody A Mendenhall; Suzanne Nichols; Zofia Piotrowska; Antoinette J Wozniak; Mitch Raponi; Chris A Karlovich; Sarah Jaw-Tsai; Jeffrey Isaacson; Darrin Despain; Shannon L Matheny; Lindsey Rolfe; Andrew R Allen; D Ross Camidge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Guillermo Paez; Pasi A Jänne; Jeffrey C Lee; Sean Tracy; Heidi Greulich; Stacey Gabriel; Paula Herman; Frederic J Kaye; Neal Lindeman; Titus J Boggon; Katsuhiko Naoki; Hidefumi Sasaki; Yoshitaka Fujii; Michael J Eck; William R Sellers; Bruce E Johnson; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Science Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Helena A Yu; Maria E Arcila; Natasha Rekhtman; Camelia S Sima; Maureen F Zakowski; William Pao; Mark G Kris; Vincent A Miller; Marc Ladanyi; Gregory J Riely Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Justin F Gainor; Alice T Shaw; Lecia V Sequist; Xiujun Fu; Christopher G Azzoli; Zofia Piotrowska; Tiffany G Huynh; Ling Zhao; Linnea Fulton; Katherine R Schultz; Emily Howe; Anna F Farago; Ryan J Sullivan; James R Stone; Subba Digumarthy; Teresa Moran; Aaron N Hata; Yukako Yagi; Beow Y Yeap; Jeffrey A Engelman; Mari Mino-Kenudson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Bo Da Nam; Soon Ho Yoon; Hyunsook Hong; Jung Hwa Hwang; Jin Mo Goo; Suyeon Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Sabine Wessels; Thomas Muley; Petros Christopoulos; Michael Meister; Ingrid Heinzmann-Groth; Arne Warth; Esther Herpel; Simone Hummler; Ursula Klingmüller; Jonas Kuon; Claus-Peter Heussel; Ralf Eberhardt; Felix J F Herth; Hauke Winter; Helge Bischoff; Albrecht Stenzinger; Martin Reck; Rudolf Maria Huber; Michael Thomas; Marc A Schneider Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2020-08