Guimarães Marcos Duarte, Marchiori Edson, Hochhegger Bruno, Chojniak Rubens, Gross Jefferson Luiz
AC Camargo Cancer Center, Department of Imaging, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Department of Radiology, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil.
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014;69(5):335-40. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2014(05)07.
To evaluate the performance of fine and cutting needles in computed tomography guided-biopsy of lung lesions suspicious for malignancy and to determine which technique is the best option for a specific diagnosis.
This retrospective study reviewed the data from 362 (71.6%) patients who underwent fine-needle aspiration biopsy and from 97 (19.7%) patients who underwent cutting-needle biopsy between January 2006 and December 2011. The data concerning demographic and lesion characteristics, procedures, biopsy sample adequacy, specific diagnoses, and complications were collected. The success and complication rates of both biopsy techniques were calculated.
Cutting-needle biopsy yielded significantly higher percentages of adequate biopsy samples and specific diagnoses than did fine-needle aspiration biopsy (p<0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cutting-needle biopsy were 93.8%, 97.3%, and 95.2%, respectively; those of fine-needle aspiration biopsy were 82.6%, 81.3%, and 81.8%, respectively (all p<0.05). The incidence of pneumothorax was higher for fine-needle aspiration biopsy, and that of hematoma was higher for cutting-needle biopsy (both p<0.05).
Our experience using these two techniques for computed tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy showed that cutting-needle biopsy yielded better results than did fine-needle aspiration biopsy and that there was no significant increase in complication rates to indicate the best option for specific diagnoses.
评估细针和切割针在计算机断层扫描引导下对可疑恶性肺病变进行活检的性能,并确定哪种技术是进行特定诊断的最佳选择。
这项回顾性研究回顾了2006年1月至2011年12月期间362例(71.6%)接受细针穿刺活检患者和97例(19.7%)接受切割针活检患者的数据。收集了有关人口统计学和病变特征、操作过程、活检样本充足性、特定诊断及并发症的数据。计算了两种活检技术的成功率和并发症发生率。
切割针活检获得充足活检样本和特定诊断的百分比显著高于细针穿刺活检(p<0.05)。切割针活检的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为93.8%、97.3%和95.2%;细针穿刺活检的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为82.6%、81.3%和81.8%(均p<0.05)。细针穿刺活检气胸发生率较高,切割针活检血肿发生率较高(均p<0.05)。
我们使用这两种技术进行计算机断层扫描引导下经皮活检的经验表明,切割针活检比细针穿刺活检效果更好,且并发症发生率没有显著增加,这表明其是进行特定诊断的最佳选择。