4.3 Article

Percutaneous guided biopsy for diagnosing suspected primary malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients: a safe, accurate, and cost-saving procedure

期刊

PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 235-244

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00247-016-3735-3

关键词

Accuracy; Bone neoplasm; Children; Cost analysis; Fine-needle aspiration; Percutaneous core-needle biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Percutaneous biopsy is the reference diagnostic procedure for adult musculoskeletal tumors. Its place in pediatrics is controversial and open biopsy remains recommended. To assess diagnostic performance and feasibility of percutaneous biopsy performed on children and young adults for suspected malignant bone tumors. We conducted a 5-year retrospective study including patients <= 21 years who underwent a bone biopsy for a suspected malignant bone tumor. We assessed diagnostic yield (percentage of analyzable biopsies), accuracy (percentage of accurate diagnoses among all analyzable biopsies) and efficacy (percentage of accurate diagnoses among all biopsies), costs, anesthetic requirements and sample availability for biomedical research. Patients diagnosed with an open biopsy were used to compare diagnostic performances, anesthetic requirements and costs. We included 90 percutaneous and 27 open biopsies in 117 patients. For percutaneous biopsy, diagnostic yield was 95.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.8-98.7%), accuracy was 96.2% (95% CI 86.8-99.5%) and efficacy was 89.3% (95% CI 78.1-96.0%). There was no statistical difference with open biopsy (Fisher exact test, P > 0.05). Mean costs were reduced with percutaneous biopsy: (sic)1,937 (standard deviation [SD] (sic)2,408) versus (sic)6,362 (SD (sic)5,033; Mann-Whitney, P < 0.0001). Thirty-two of the 48 (67%) patients included in clinical trials and diagnosed with percutaneous biopsy had suitable samples for ancillary analyses. Percutaneous biopsy is a valid alternative to open biopsy for diagnosing pediatric and young adult primary malignant bone tumors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据