Yaşa Gül Mutlu, Berrin Balık Aydın, Aslı Çakır, Özlem Canöz, Cengiz Erol, Ömür Gökmen Sevindik
{"title":"Should Core Needle Lymph Node Biopsy be a Relevant Alternative to Surgical Excisional Biopsy in Diagnostic Work Up of Lymphomas?","authors":"Yaşa Gül Mutlu, Berrin Balık Aydın, Aslı Çakır, Özlem Canöz, Cengiz Erol, Ömür Gökmen Sevindik","doi":"10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Surgical excisional biopsy is accepted as the standard of care approach in the diagnosis of lympho- mas. Financial issues related to the increased cost and the invasive nature of the procedure forced physicians to use some alternative diagnostic methods. Percutaneous core needle biopsy, which gained a reputation for the diagnosis of lymphomas with the advent of improved pathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis, made it possible to have an accurate diagnosis with limited tissue samples. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of surgical excisional biopsy and core needle biopsy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study included 131 patients who were diagnosed with lymphoma with a nodal biopsy which was acquired via surgical excisional biopsy or core needle biopsy between 2014 and 2020 in our center. Around 68 patients underwent surgical excisional biopsy and the remaining 63 underwent core needle biopsy. Samples that allowed to the identification of the exact tumor type and/or subtype were accepted as fully diagnostic. Sufficient amount of tissue that the pathologist could have any suspicious findings considering malignant lymphoma was classified as partial diagnostic group. Inadequate samples were the ones who were not enough to report any final diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The patients who underwent a core needle biopsy were significantly older than the patients who underwent to surgical excisional biopsy (56.8 vs. 47.6, P = .003). Despite the full diagnostic ability of surgical excisional biopsy outperformed core needle biopsy (95.2 % vs. 83.8 %, P=.035), in 92.6% of the patients whose tissue samples were obtained via core needle biopsy were accepted to have a sufficient diagnosis to initiate the treatment and not required a second biopsy, which was comparable with the ones achieved by surgical excisional biopsy (92.6% vs. 95.2%, P = .720).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to the results obtained in our study, we may conclude that core needle biopsy is a viable and comparable alternative to surgical excisional biopsy, offering a less invasive and less-expansive approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":53592,"journal":{"name":"Eurasian Journal of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10440969/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eurasian Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Surgical excisional biopsy is accepted as the standard of care approach in the diagnosis of lympho- mas. Financial issues related to the increased cost and the invasive nature of the procedure forced physicians to use some alternative diagnostic methods. Percutaneous core needle biopsy, which gained a reputation for the diagnosis of lymphomas with the advent of improved pathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis, made it possible to have an accurate diagnosis with limited tissue samples. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of surgical excisional biopsy and core needle biopsy.
Materials and methods: This study included 131 patients who were diagnosed with lymphoma with a nodal biopsy which was acquired via surgical excisional biopsy or core needle biopsy between 2014 and 2020 in our center. Around 68 patients underwent surgical excisional biopsy and the remaining 63 underwent core needle biopsy. Samples that allowed to the identification of the exact tumor type and/or subtype were accepted as fully diagnostic. Sufficient amount of tissue that the pathologist could have any suspicious findings considering malignant lymphoma was classified as partial diagnostic group. Inadequate samples were the ones who were not enough to report any final diagnosis.
Results: The patients who underwent a core needle biopsy were significantly older than the patients who underwent to surgical excisional biopsy (56.8 vs. 47.6, P = .003). Despite the full diagnostic ability of surgical excisional biopsy outperformed core needle biopsy (95.2 % vs. 83.8 %, P=.035), in 92.6% of the patients whose tissue samples were obtained via core needle biopsy were accepted to have a sufficient diagnosis to initiate the treatment and not required a second biopsy, which was comparable with the ones achieved by surgical excisional biopsy (92.6% vs. 95.2%, P = .720).
Conclusion: According to the results obtained in our study, we may conclude that core needle biopsy is a viable and comparable alternative to surgical excisional biopsy, offering a less invasive and less-expansive approach.
目的:手术切除活检被认为是诊断淋巴瘤的标准治疗方法。与增加的费用和手术的侵入性有关的财务问题迫使医生使用一些替代的诊断方法。随着病理、免疫组织化学和分子分析技术的改进,经皮穿刺活检在诊断淋巴瘤方面获得了声誉,使得利用有限的组织样本进行准确诊断成为可能。在这项回顾性研究中,我们旨在比较手术切除活检和核心穿刺活检的诊断率。材料与方法:本研究纳入本中心2014 - 2020年间131例经手术切除活检或核心穿刺活检获得淋巴结活检的淋巴瘤患者。约68例患者行手术切除活检,其余63例行核心穿刺活检。样本允许识别准确的肿瘤类型和/或亚型被接受为完全诊断。足够数量的组织,病理学家可能有任何可疑的发现,考虑到恶性淋巴瘤被归类为部分诊断组。不充分的样本不足以报告任何最终诊断。结果:行核心针穿刺活检的患者年龄明显大于行手术切除活检的患者(56.8 vs. 47.6, P = 0.003)。尽管手术切除活检的全面诊断能力优于芯针活检(95.2%比83.8%,P= 0.035),但在通过芯针活检获得组织样本的患者中,有92.6%的患者接受了足够的诊断,可以开始治疗,不需要第二次活检,这与手术切除活检的结果相当(92.6%比95.2%,P= 0.720)。结论:根据我们的研究结果,我们可以得出结论,核心针活检是一种可行的、可替代手术切除活检的方法,具有侵入性小、扩张性小的特点。
期刊介绍:
Eurasian Journal of Medicine (Eurasian J Med) is an international, scientific, open access periodical published by independent, unbiased, and triple-blinded peer-review principles. The journal is the official publication of Atatürk University School of Medicine and published triannually in February, June, and October. The publication language of the journal is English. The aim of the Eurasian Journal of Medicine is to publish original research papers of the highest scientific and clinical value in all medical fields. The Eurasian J Med also includes reviews, editorial short notes and letters to the editor that either as a comment related to recently published articles in our journal or as a case report. The target audience of the journal includes researchers, physicians and healthcare professionals who are interested or working in in all medical disciplines.