Can Cutting-Needle Biopsy Be an Alternative to Excisional Biopsy in Lymph Node Pathologies?

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare cutting-needle biopsy (CNB) diagnoses with excisional biopsy diagnoses of enlarging lymph nodes and to determine the diagnostic value of CNB.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Out of the 291 cases that underwent CNB from lymph nodes between 2010 and 2016, 60 were included in the study in which pathological lymph nodes were excised after CNB. Demographic information, pathology and imaging reports, the diameters of the lymph nodes and the length of the CNBs of these cases were obtained from the hospital registry system. Diagnoses of the CNBs and excisional biopsies were then compared.

RESULTS

According to the excisional biopsy diagnosis, 7 of the 60 cases (11.7%) were benign and 53 of them (88.3%) were malignant. 28 (53%) of the malignant cases were diagnosed as Hodgkin's lymphoma while the others (47%) got a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis. In the 8 non-diagnostic CNBs, 3(37%) of them were found to be benign/reactive, while 5 (63%) were diagnosed as malign lymphoma in excisional biopsy. Similarly, 7(64%) of the 11 cases diagnosed as benign/reactive in CNB, were found to be malignant with excisional biopsy. When CNB and excisional biopsy were compared, sensitivity and specificity were 90% and 100%; positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 100% and 0%, respectively, and the diagnostic accuracy rate (DV) was 86.5%. The mean diameter of the benign lymph nodes was 26.1 mm and the mean diameter of the malignant ones was 35.6 mm. There was no significant difference between malignant and benign lymph node size (p > 0.05). There was also no statistically significant difference between CNB length and correct diagnosis (p=0.233).

CONCLUSION

CNB is a non-invasive procedure. It is an alternative to excisional biopsy because of its low morbidity and low cost. However, the sensitivity of CNB is lower than its specificity, and we recommend the surgical excision of lymph nodes with a clinically strong neoplasm suspicion because of the presence of false negatives in 7 cases.