IMAGE-ASSISTED PLEURAL NEEDLE BIOPSY OR MEDICAL THORACOSCOPY: WHICH METHOD FOR WHICH PATIENT? A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.

Computed tomography Diagnosis Needle biopsy Pleura Thoracoscopy Ultrasonography

Journal

Chest
ISSN: 1931-3543
Titre abrégé: Chest
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0231335

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 27 12 2022
revised: 22 03 2024
accepted: 23 03 2024
medline: 31 3 2024
pubmed: 31 3 2024
entrez: 30 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Image-guided or assisted needle biopsies and the increasing use of medical thoracoscopy (MT) have significantly increased the diagnostic accuracy of pleural diseases. However, there is no consensus on which patients should undergo medical thoracoscopy (MT) and which patient should undergo image-guided or assisted needle biopsy as the first procedure to ensure greater diagnostic accuracy in patients with pleural effusion. Which biopsy method is more appropriate for which patient to provide the highest diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of pleural effusion? This prospective, randomized, parallel study included two hundred twenty-eight patients with undiagnosed exudative pleural effusion. Patients were divided into two groups based on computed tomography (CT) findings. Group 1: patients with pleural effusion only; Group 2: patients with pleural thickening or lesion in addition to pleural effusion. Patients in each group were randomly assigned to an image- assisted Abrams needle biopsy (IA-ANPB) or MT arm. The diagnostic sensitivity, reliability, and safety were determined for both groups. The false negativity rate was 30.3% for the IA-ANPB arm and 3.1% for the MT arm in Group 1. The same rates were 11.9% for IA-ANPB and 4.7% for MT in Group 2. In Group 1, the sensitivity for the IA-ANPB arm was 69.7%, negative likelihood ratio of 0.30. The same rates for the MT arm were 96.9% and 0.03 (p=0.009). In Group 2, these values were 88.1% and 0.12 for the IA-ANPB arm and 95.4% and 0.05 for the MT arm (p=0.207). The rate of complications between the two biopsy methods was not different (8.5% and 15.8%, respectively; p=0.107). MT showed a high diagnostic success in all patients with pleural fluid. On the other hand, IA-ANPB showed similar diagnostic success as MT in patients with pleural effusion and associated pleural thickening/lesions. Therefore, in the latter case, IA-ANPB could be preferable before MT.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Image-guided or assisted needle biopsies and the increasing use of medical thoracoscopy (MT) have significantly increased the diagnostic accuracy of pleural diseases. However, there is no consensus on which patients should undergo medical thoracoscopy (MT) and which patient should undergo image-guided or assisted needle biopsy as the first procedure to ensure greater diagnostic accuracy in patients with pleural effusion.
RESEARCH QUESTION OBJECTIVE
Which biopsy method is more appropriate for which patient to provide the highest diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of pleural effusion?
METHODS METHODS
This prospective, randomized, parallel study included two hundred twenty-eight patients with undiagnosed exudative pleural effusion. Patients were divided into two groups based on computed tomography (CT) findings. Group 1: patients with pleural effusion only; Group 2: patients with pleural thickening or lesion in addition to pleural effusion. Patients in each group were randomly assigned to an image- assisted Abrams needle biopsy (IA-ANPB) or MT arm. The diagnostic sensitivity, reliability, and safety were determined for both groups.
RESULTS RESULTS
The false negativity rate was 30.3% for the IA-ANPB arm and 3.1% for the MT arm in Group 1. The same rates were 11.9% for IA-ANPB and 4.7% for MT in Group 2. In Group 1, the sensitivity for the IA-ANPB arm was 69.7%, negative likelihood ratio of 0.30. The same rates for the MT arm were 96.9% and 0.03 (p=0.009). In Group 2, these values were 88.1% and 0.12 for the IA-ANPB arm and 95.4% and 0.05 for the MT arm (p=0.207). The rate of complications between the two biopsy methods was not different (8.5% and 15.8%, respectively; p=0.107).
INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS
MT showed a high diagnostic success in all patients with pleural fluid. On the other hand, IA-ANPB showed similar diagnostic success as MT in patients with pleural effusion and associated pleural thickening/lesions. Therefore, in the latter case, IA-ANPB could be preferable before MT.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38554817
pii: S0012-3692(24)00427-6
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2024.03.038
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Muzaffer Metintas (M)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty, Department of Chest Diseases, Eskisehir, Turkey; Eskisehir Osmangazi University Lung and Pleural Cancers Clinical and Reserach Center, Eskisehir, Turkey. Electronic address: muzaffermetintas@gmail.com.

Guntulu Ak (G)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty, Department of Chest Diseases, Eskisehir, Turkey; Eskisehir Osmangazi University Lung and Pleural Cancers Clinical and Reserach Center, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Huseyin Yildirim (H)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty, Department of Chest Diseases, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Emine Dundar (E)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty, Department of Pathology, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Nevin Aydin (N)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty, Department of Radiology, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Sinan Erginel (S)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty, Department of Chest Diseases, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Fusun Alatas (F)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty, Department of Chest Diseases, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Senay Yilmaz (S)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty, Department of Chest Diseases, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Selma Metintas (S)

Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Medical Faculty, Department of Public Health; Eskisehir Osmangazi University Lung and Pleural Cancers Clinical and Reserach Center, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Classifications MeSH