4.6 Article

Ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of the spleen:: High clinical efficacy and low risk in a multicenter Italian study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 2, Pages 93-99

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.1085

Keywords

ultrasound; biopsy; spleen; lymphomas

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (UG-FNB) of the spleen in a large population of patients. We collected retrospectively the findings concerning the application of UG-FNB of the spleen from eight Italian clinical centers that utilized this technique for at least ten years. A data schedule was sent to all centers to collect information about techniques, results, and complications of UG-FNB of the spleen. We analyzed 398 biopsy procedures both on focal lesions (257 cases) and on splenic parenchyma (141 cases). The overall accuracy was 90.9% for the series as a whole, 84.9% for cytological sampling, 88.3% for microhistological sampling, and 90.3% for both cytological and histological sampling (double biopsy). Tissue core biopsy yielded better overall accuracy in patients with suspected splenic involvement by lymphoma (90.9% vs. 68.5% for cytology), The complication rate was low (no death cases, less than 1% for major complications, and 5.2% for all complications). No predictive factors were able to detect high-risk situations. The operator's skill (higher number of performed procedures) was significantly related to better overall accuracy. Conversely, the complication rate was not affected. UG-FNB of the spleen is a very effective diagnostic procedure with low risk for the patient. Aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy showed similar diagnostic yields, except for the diagnosis of splenic lymphoma, in which core needle biopsy obtained better results. Am. J. Hematol. 67:93-99, 2001, (C) 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available