4.7 Article

Diagnostic accuracy and safety of CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsy with a coaxial cutting needle for the diagnosis of lung cancer in patients with UIP pattern

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20030-z

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and safety of CT-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy (PCNB) for lung cancer in patients with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP). The results showed that CT-guided PCNB had reasonable accuracy for diagnosing lung cancer, although there was a slightly higher percentage of nondiagnostic results. The rate of complications was also acceptable.
This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and safety of CT-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy (PCNB) with a coaxial needle for the diagnosis of lung cancer in patients with an usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern of interstitial lung disease. This study included 70 patients with UIP and suspected to have lung cancer. CT-guided PCNB was performed using a 20-gauge coaxial cutting needle. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and percentage of nondiagnostic results for PCNB were determined in comparison with the final diagnosis. PCNB-related complications were evaluated. Additionally, the risk factors for nondiagnostic results and pneumothorax were analyzed. The overall diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 85.7%, 85.5%, and 87.5%, respectively. The percentage of nondiagnostic results was 18.6% (13/70). Two or less biopsy sampling was a risk factor for nondiagnostic results (p = 0.003). The overall complication rate was 35.7% (25/70), and pneumothorax developed in 22 patients (31.4%). A long transpulmonary needle path was a risk factor for the development of pneumothorax (p = 0.007). CT-guided PCNB using a coaxial needle is an effective method with reasonable accuracy and an acceptable complication rate for the diagnosis of lung cancer, even in patients with UIP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available