• Yong Li, Fang Yang, Ya-Yong Huang, and Wei Cao.
• Sichuan Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging and Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Mar 4; 101 (9): e29016e29016.

BackgroundThis meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and diagnostic performance between computed tomography (CT)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) and fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) in lung nodules/masses patients.MethodsAll relevant studies in the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases that were published as of June 2020 were identified. RevMan version 5.3 was used for all data analyses.ResultsIn total, 9 relevant studies were included in the present meta-analysis. These studies were all retrospective and analyzed outcomes associated with 2175 procedures, including both CT-guided CNB (n = 819) and FNAB (n = 1356) procedures. CNB was associated with significantly higher sample adequacy rates than was FNAB (95.7% vs 85.8%, OR: 0.26; P < .00001), while diagnostic accuracy rates did not differ between these groups (90.1% vs 87.6%, OR: 0.8; P = .46). In addition, no differences in rates of pneumothorax (28.6% vs 23.0%, OR: 1.15; P = .71), hemorrhage (17.3% vs 20.1%, OR: 0.91; P = .62), and chest tube insertion (5.9% vs 4.9%, OR: 1.01; P = .97) were detected between these groups. Significant heterogeneity among included studies was detected for the diagnostic accuracy (I2 = 57%) and pneumothorax (I2 = 77%) endpoints. There were no significant differences between CNB and FNAB with respect to diagnostic accuracy rates for lung nodules (P = .90). In addition, we detected no evidence of significant publication bias.ConclusionsCT-guided CNB could achieve better sample adequacy than FNAB did during the lung biopsy procedure. However, the CNB did not show any superiorities in items of diagnostic accuracy and safety.Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

23 keywords...

hide…