Fine-needle aspiration biopsy versus fine-needle capillary (nonaspiration) biopsy: In vivo comparison

Carrie A. Savage, Kenneth D. Hopper, Catherine Abendroth, Jonathan S. Hartzel, Thomas R. TenHave

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

24 Scopus citations


PURPOSE: To evaluate, in vivo, the efficacy of fine-needle capillary (non- aspiration) biopsy (FNCB) versus fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) when performed at the same site with a coaxial technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 91 patients, biopsy was performed at 140 sites in 93 lesions mostly throughout the chest and abdomen with either FNCB or FNAB, or both (98 sites). A coaxial technique with a 22-gauge needle was used. The quality of the specimen was graded by a blinded pathologist, who also made a pathologic diagnosis. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was noted in the graded criteria performance plus diagnostic yield between the two techniques. When performed before FNAB, FNCB yielded a better quality specimen of a particular site. However, there was no difference in the graded quality of FNAB whether performed before or after FNCB. Insufficient specimens were obtained at 30 (21.4%) of 140 sites with FNCB versus only 18 (12.8%) with FNAB. CONCLUSION: FNCB is an alternative to FNAB and provides a cellular diagnostic specimen from most lesions. When a coaxial method is used and both techniques are employed, the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques is 84%.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)815-819
Number of pages5
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jun 1995

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Fine-needle aspiration biopsy versus fine-needle capillary (nonaspiration) biopsy: In vivo comparison'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this