» Articles » PMID: 33373985

Diagnostic Yield and Safety of Image-Guided Pleural Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview
Journal Respiration
Publisher Karger
Specialty Pulmonary Medicine
Date 2020 Dec 29
PMID 33373985
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Diagnostic yield (DY) and safety of computed tomography (CT)- and thoracic ultrasound (TUS)-guided biopsies in the diagnosis of pleural lesions have been investigated in a number of studies, but no synthesis of data from the literature has ever been performed.

Objectives: We aimed to provide the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the DY and safety of CT- versus TUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of pleural lesions.

Method: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for all studies reporting outcomes of interest published up to April 2018. Two authors reviewed all titles/abstracts and retrieved selected full text to identify studies according to predefined selection criteria. Summary estimates were derived using the random-effects model. Cumulative meta-analysis assessed the influence of increasing adoption of the procedures over time.

Results: Thirty original studies were included in the present review; the number of studies on TUS-guided biopsy was almost three-fold higher than those on CT-guided biopsy. The pooled DYs of the 2 procedures were overall excellent and differed <10%, being 84% for TUS-guided biopsy and 93% for CT-guided biopsy. Safety profiles were reassuring for both the techniques, being 7 and 3% for CT- and TUS-guided biopsy, respectively. DY of ultrasound technique significantly improved over time, while no time effect was observed for CT-guided biopsy.

Conclusions: Data show that CT- and TUS-guided biopsies in the diagnosis of pleural lesions are both excellent procedures, without meaningful differences in DYs and safety. Considering that TUS is non-ionizing and easily performed at the bedside, it should be the preferred approach in presence of adequate skills.

Citing Articles

Malignant Pleural Effusion: Diagnosis and Treatment-Up-to-Date Perspective.

Orlandi R, Cara A, Cassina E, Degiovanni S, Libretti L, Pirondini E Curr Oncol. 2024; 31(11):6867-6878.

PMID: 39590138 PMC: 11593232. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31110507.


Diagnostic yield and safety of diagnostic techniques for pulmonary lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

Balasubramanian P, Abia-Trujillo D, Barrios-Ruiz A, Garza-Salas A, Koratala A, Chandra N Eur Respir Rev. 2024; 33(173).

PMID: 39293856 PMC: 11409058. DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0046-2024.


Malignant Pleural Effusion: A Multidisciplinary Approach.

Pardessus Otero A, Rafecas-Codern A, Porcel J, Serra-Mitja P, Ferreiro L, Botana-Rial M Open Respir Arch. 2024; 6(4):100349.

PMID: 39091982 PMC: 11293617. DOI: 10.1016/j.opresp.2024.100349.


Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Pleural Needle Biopsy for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

Iadevaia C, DAgnano V, Pagliaro R, Nappi F, Lucci R, Massa S J Clin Med. 2024; 13(9).

PMID: 38731129 PMC: 11084858. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092600.


Diagnostic value of transthoracic needle biopsy in lung tumors.

Sogukpinar O, Akturk U, Akbay M, Tatlidil E, Ernam D Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2024; 70(3):e20231082.

PMID: 38656001 PMC: 11042819. DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20231082.