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

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

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

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据