Next Article in Journal
Phase I Study of the Plk1 Inhibitor BI 2536 Administered Intravenously on Three Consecutive Days in Advanced Solid Tumours
Previous Article in Journal
Increased Alpha-Fetoprotein Receptor in the Serum of Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer
 
 
Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fine-Needle Sspiration Biopsy versus Core-Needle Biopsy in Diagnosing Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

1
Program in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
2
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
3
Department of Pathology, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
4
Department of Respiratory Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2012, 19(1), 16-27; https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.871
Submission received: 6 November 2011 / Revised: 4 December 2011 / Accepted: 2 January 2012 / Published: 1 February 2012

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer leads cancer-related mortality in the world. The objective of the present systematic review was to compare fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) with core-needle biopsy (CNB) for diagnostic characteristics and yields for diagnosing lung cancer in patients with lung lesions. Methods: The MEDLINE and EMBASA databases (from January 1, 1990, to September 14, 2009), the Cochrane Library (to Issue 4, 2009), and selected guideline Web sites were searched for relevant articles. Results: For overall diagnostic characteristics (benign vs. malignant) of FNAB and CNB, the ranges of sensitivity were 81.3%–90.8% and 85.7–97.4% respectively; of specificity, 75.4%–100.0% and 88.6%–100.0%; and of accuracy, 79.7%–91.8% and 89.0%–96.9%. For specific diagnostic characteristics of FNAB and CNB (identifying the histologic subtype of malignancies or the specific benign diagnoses), the ranges of sensitivity were 56.3%–86.5% and 56.5–88.7% respectively; of specificity, 6.7%–57.1% and 52.4%–100.0%; and of accuracy, 40.4%–81.2% and 66.7%–93.2%. Compared with FNAB, CNB did not result in a higher complication rate (pneumothorax or hemoptysis). No study has yet compared the diagnostic yields of FNAB and of CNB for molecular predictive-marker studies in patients with lung lesions. Discussion and Conclusions: The evidence is currently insufficient to support a difference between FNAB and CNB in identifying lung malignancies in patients with lung lesions. Compared with FNAB, CNB m ight h ave a h igher s pecificity t o diagnose specific benign lesions. Well-designed, good-quality studies comparing FNAB with CNB for diagnostic characteristics and yields in diagnosing lung cancer should be encouraged.
Keywords: fine-needle aspiration biopsy; core-needle biopsy; diagnostic characteristics; diagnostic yields; lung cancer; systematic review fine-needle aspiration biopsy; core-needle biopsy; diagnostic characteristics; diagnostic yields; lung cancer; systematic review

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yao, X.; Gomes, M.M.; Tsao, M.S.; Allen, C.J.; Geddie, W.; Sekhon, H. Fine-Needle Sspiration Biopsy versus Core-Needle Biopsy in Diagnosing Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review. Curr. Oncol. 2012, 19, 16-27. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.871

AMA Style

Yao X, Gomes MM, Tsao MS, Allen CJ, Geddie W, Sekhon H. Fine-Needle Sspiration Biopsy versus Core-Needle Biopsy in Diagnosing Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review. Current Oncology. 2012; 19(1):16-27. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.871

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yao, X., M.M. Gomes, M.S. Tsao, C.J. Allen, W. Geddie, and H. Sekhon. 2012. "Fine-Needle Sspiration Biopsy versus Core-Needle Biopsy in Diagnosing Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review" Current Oncology 19, no. 1: 16-27. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.871

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop