| Literature DB >> 33282959 |
Tian-Feng Peng1, Tao Ren1,2, Han-Sheng Wang1,2, Zhe-Xiang Feng1, Mei-Fang Wang1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is an effective and efficient auxiliary examination, but its value for CT-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in the diagnosis of pulmonary occupying lesions is unclear. This study is aimed at evaluating the clinical utility of ROSE for CT-guided percutaneous FNA.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33282959 PMCID: PMC7685792 DOI: 10.1155/2020/9842768
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1CT scan of lesions.
Characteristics of the two groups of patients.
| Variables | With ROSE ( | Without ROSE ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 57.34 ± 11.658 | 56.40 ± 11.476 | 0.539 |
| Gender (male/female) | 86/46 | 66/36 | 0.994 |
Figure 2Cytological characteristics of ROSE for SCC, AC, SCLC, tuberculosis, Aspergillus, and Cryptococcus neoformans.
Final pathological diagnosis results of CT-guided percutaneous FNA with or without ROSE.
| Result | ROSE group (ROSE results) | NO-ROSE group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not cancer | Inflammation | 30 (31) | 22 |
| Tuberculosis | 24 (34) | 19 | |
| Fungal infection | 3 (1) | 1 | |
| Atypical hyperplasia | 5 (2) | 1 | |
| Other | 6 (4) | 5 | |
|
| |||
| Malignancy | AC | 45 (34) | 34 |
| SCC | 11 (6) | 9 | |
| NSCLC-NOS | 1 (12) | 5 | |
| SCLC | 3 (3) | 1 | |
| Other | 4 (5) | 3 | |
|
| |||
| Benign | Hamartoma | 0 (0) | 2 |
|
| |||
| Total | 132 | 102 | |
AC: adenocarcinoma; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; NSCLC-NOS: nonsmall cell lung cancer-not; SCLC: small cell lung cancer.
Comparison of the ROSE result with the final pathological diagnosis of patients using FNA (n = 132).
| ROSE result | Final pathological diagnosis | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cancer | Not cancer | ||
| Cancer | 57 | 4 | 61 |
| Not cancer | 7 | 64 | 71 |
| Total | 64 | 68 | 132 |
Cytological malignant diagnoses in the ROSE group compared with the final pathological result.
| Malignancy | ROSE group | Final pathological result |
|---|---|---|
| AC | 34 | 45 |
| SC | 6 | 11 |
| NSCLC-NOS | 12 | 1 |
| SCLC | 3 | 3 |
| Other malignancy | 5 | 4 |
| Total | 61 | 63 |
Correlation between the ROSE result and pathology in malignant cases (n = 132).
| ROSE result | Final pathological diagnosis | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC | SCC | NSCLC-NOS | SCLC | Other malignancy | Not cancer | ||
| AC | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 34 |
| SCC | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| NSCLC-NOS | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| SCLC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Other malignancy | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Not cancer | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 72 |
| Total | 45 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 68 | 132 |
Pulmonary infection diagnoses in the ROSE group compared with the final pathological result.
| Category | ROSE group | Final pathological result |
|---|---|---|
| Inflammation | 31 | 30 |
| Tuberculosis | 34 | 24 |
| Fungal infection | 1 | 3 |
| Total | 66 | 57 |
Correlation between the ROSE result and pathology in pulmonary infection cases (n = 132).
| ROSE result | Final pathological diagnosis | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inflammation | Tuberculosis | Fungal infection | No infection | ||
| Inflammation | 24 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 31 |
| Tuberculosis | 6 | 23 | 1 | 4 | 34 |
| Fungal infection | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| No infection | 0 | 1 | 0 | 65 | 66 |
| Total | 30 | 24 | 3 | 75 | 132 |
Figure 3Complication rate in the ROSE group and the NO-ROSE group (P > 0.05).