4.5 Article

Office-based biopsies for laryngeal lesions: Analysis of consecutive 581 cases

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 126, Issue 11, Pages 2513-2519

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25930

Keywords

Office-based biopsy; larynx; malignancy; endoscopic; diagnostic accuracy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/HypothesisOffice-based biopsy (OBB) is widely used to diagnose suspicious laryngeal lesions. However, its routine use is still controversial and the algorithm for clinical strategy is not concrete. We tried to evaluate the accuracy of OBB as a diagnostic tool for laryngeal malignancy. MethodsMedical data of 581 patients undergoing OBB were reviewed. Diagnostic values of OBB were analyzed for malignancy and malignancy/premalignancy. False negative rates (FNRs) were analyzed according to subsites, lesion sizes, and morphology. ResultsThe collection rate of adequate specimens was 99.1%, and there were no complications during OBB. The false omission rates for malignancy of benign lesion; mild, moderate, and severe dysplasia; and carcinoma in situ (CIS) were 5.1%, 11.9%, 14.3%, 50.0%, and 100.0%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for malignancy in OBB were 78.2%, 100.0%, 100.0%, and 87.3%, respectively. Those for malignancy/premalignancy in OBB were 88.2%, 86.7%, 85.7%, and 89.1%, respectively. The high FNRs were reported in glottis lesions (27.0%) and small lesions below 1 cm (27.5%). Morphologically fungating lesions showed low FNR (9.1%) compared to nonfungating ones. ConclusionOffice-based biopsy could be used as an initial diagnostic tool for laryngeal malignancy for early detection and avoidance of general anesthesia. However, operative re-biopsy should be considered when severe dysplasia or CIS were reported in OBB, or when the lesions are clinically suspicious for malignancy. Level of Evidence4. Laryngoscope, 126:2513-2519, 2016

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available