TY - JOUR
T1 - Fine-needle aspiration biopsy versus fine-needle capillary (nonaspiration) biopsy
T2 - In vivo comparison
AU - Savage, Carrie A.
AU - Hopper, Kenneth D.
AU - Abendroth, Catherine
AU - Hartzel, Jonathan S.
AU - TenHave, Thomas R.
PY - 1995/6
Y1 - 1995/6
N2 - 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%.
AB - 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%.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029029293&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029029293&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/radiology.195.3.7754015
DO - 10.1148/radiology.195.3.7754015
M3 - Article
C2 - 7754015
AN - SCOPUS:0029029293
SN - 0033-8419
VL - 195
SP - 815
EP - 819
JO - Radiology
JF - Radiology
IS - 3
ER -