Comparison between computed tomography-guided core and fine needle lung biopsy: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:This 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.Methods:All 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.Results:In 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.Conclusions:CT-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.