Objectives
To compare ultrasound (US) versus computed tomography (CT) for primary guidance during needle biopsy of chest lesions.
Methods
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant retrospective study, and the need for informed consent was waived. All US‐ and CT‐guided chest biopsy procedures performed between January 1, 2012, and October 15, 2014, at our institution were reviewed, and all procedures targeting peripheral intrathoracic and chest wall lesions were included. Axillary lesions, lung lesions without peripheral pleural contact, and mediastinal lesions without a transcutaneous US window were excluded. Radiologic, pathologic, and clinical records were reviewed.
Results
Fifty‐five procedures with primary US guidance (23 lung, 6 pleural, 2 mediastinal, and 24 chest wall) and 130 CT procedures (88 lung, 10 pleural, 7 mediastinal, and 25 chest wall) were performed. Diagnostic samples were obtained in 98% (54 of 55) of US procedures and 87% (113 of 130) of CT procedures (P = .02). Pneumothorax requiring treatment occurred in 2% (1 of 55) of US procedures and 5% (7 of 130) of CT procedures (P = .25). Computed tomographic localization was used in 29% (16 of 55) of US procedures. Nevertheless, the average patient radiation dose was significantly less in US procedures (182 mGy‐cm) versus CT procedures (718 mGy‐cm; P< .01). The average procedure time was 40 minutes for US and 38 minutes for CT (P = .39). The average lesion size was 4.5 cm for US and 4.9 cm for CT (P = .14).
Conclusions
During biopsy of peripheral intrathoracic lesions and chest wall lesions, primary US guidance resulted in a higher likelihood of a diagnostic sample and a decreased patient radiation dose compared with CT guidance.
In patients presenting with suspected lung cancer and suspicious neck lymph nodes, ultrasound-guided needle biopsy frequently provides adequate tissue for complete pathologic evaluation and eliminates the need for more invasive procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.