Premium
Is Ultrasound‐Guided Core Biopsy as Safe as Fine‐Needle Aspiration, and Does It Add Significantly to the Diagnosis of Suspected Peritoneal Malignancy?
Author(s) -
Kipper Benjamin,
McGahan John P.,
Loehfelm Thomas W.,
Fananapazir Ghaneh
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of ultrasound in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1550-9613
pISSN - 0278-4297
DOI - 10.1002/jum.15095
Subject(s) - medicine , biopsy , fine needle aspiration , malignancy , radiology , percutaneous , retrospective cohort study , ultrasound , surgery , pathology
Objectives We undertook this retrospective review to compare the safety and diagnostic yield of core biopsy (CB) compared to fine‐needle aspiration (FNA) in patients with suspected peritoneal malignancy. Methods This retrospective study included 35 patients who underwent ultrasound (US)‐guided percutaneous biopsy of a peritoneal mass. Success rates of US‐guided biopsy of these masses using the CB technique, FNA, or the combination of the two were compared. Outcomes of tissue adequacy, the final pathologic diagnosis, and complications were recorded. The binary outcome variable was adequate tissue obtained. Results Adequate specimens were obtained in 94% (33 of 35) of the cases. There were 19 CBs, with 100% of samples sufficient for diagnosis (19 of 19). Thirty‐one FNAs were performed, of which 7 were insufficient, with a diagnostic yield of 77% (24 of 31). There was a statistically significant difference between FNA and CB in providing more adequate tissue for diagnosis in our population ( P = .035). There were no significant complications in either group. Conclusions The use of the CB technique when performing US‐guided percutaneous biopsy of peritoneal masses provides better tissue for diagnosis compared to FNA. Additional benefits of CB, including genomic testing and tumor subtyping, make this technique a good addition to FNA, without significant complications.