Hassan SF, Mathur S, Magliaro TJ, et al .Needle core vs open biopsy for diagnosis of intermediate- and high- risk neuroblastoma in children
Division of Pediatric Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Journal of Pediatric Surgery
(Impact Factor: 1.39).
06/2012; 47(6):1261-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.03.040
Open biopsy has been the mainstay for definitive diagnosis of neuroblastoma in pediatric patients. However, needle core biopsy may represent a faster, less invasive, and safer alternative to open biopsy in children. The purpose of this study was to compare safety and efficacy between needle core and open biopsy in the diagnosis of patients with intermediate- and high-risk neuroblastoma at our institution.
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of children with intermediate- and high-risk neuroblastoma who underwent open or needle core biopsies from 2002 to 2010. Data collected included patient demographics, tumor size, sample adequacy for diagnosis and risk stratification (histology and cytogenetics), length of hospital stay, time to initiate chemotherapy after biopsy, need for repeat biopsy, and both intraoperative and postoperative complications. Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests were used for statistical analysis.
During the study period, 7 patients underwent needle core primary biopsies (5 intermediate-risk primary tumors and 2 high-risk primary tumors), and 4 patients underwent needle core biopsy for metastatic tumors, whereas 21 patients had open biopsies (10, intermediate risk; 11, high risk). Median age at biopsy and median tumor size were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in adequacy of biopsy, need for repeat biopsy, time to initiate chemotherapy, length of stay, or minor complications. The rate of major complications differed significantly between the 2 groups with 0% after needle core biopsy vs 48% after open biopsy (P = .027).
In children, needle core biopsy is comparable in efficacy with open biopsy in the diagnosis of intermediate- and high-risk neuroblastoma with significantly lower rates of major postoperative complications. These findings warrant a larger scale evaluation of diagnostic needle core biopsies in pediatric patients with solid tumor.
Available from: Jason Jarzembowski
Journal of Pediatric Surgery 11/2012; 47(11):2162-3. DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.08.030 · 1.39 Impact Factor
Available from: Eugene S Kim
Journal of Pediatric Surgery 11/2012; 47(11):2163-5. DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.08.029 · 1.39 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Traditionally in pediatric oncology, biopsies were incisional, with a recent alternative of percutaneous imaging-guided biopsies. In our department, ultrasound (US)-guided core biopsy is the first choice for tissue diagnosis in the pediatric population. We retrospectively reviewed our experience and assessed the accuracy rate, safety, and availability of the procedure.
Materials and methods:
Pediatric US-guided biopsies performed in our hospital between November 2003 and November 2011 were studied. Data collection included demographics, clinical and procedural data, and follow-up.
A total of 213 biopsies were performed on 191 patients: 40 known oncologic patients and 173 to establish diagnosis. Seventeen biopsies were excluded, as malignancy was not suspected. Sixty-five percent of the patients had a biopsy within a day. A total of 138 biopsies with tumor at the biopsy site were correctly diagnosed and 4 were missed. Fifty-eight patients were negative for tumor. The sensitivity of our ultrasound-guided core biopsy is 97.1%, specificity 100%, and accuracy 97.9%.We found no complication related to sedation, and 2 procedural complications-bleeding from the biopsy site and seeding of tumor cells-were reported.
We find US-guided core biopsy for suspected malignancy in the pediatric population to be highly available, safe, and very accurate, having a potential to become the procedure of choice.
Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 12/2012; 36(5). DOI:10.1097/MPH.0b013e31827e4c4d · 0.90 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.