Ultrasound-guided biopsies have a high yield for tissue diagnosis for lung cancer, regardless of sampling method, according to research published September 11 in Respiratory Medicine.
A team led by Maged Hassan, PhD, from Alexandria University in Egypt, also found that fine-needle aspiration and core biopsy improve the overall yield.
“Combining fine-needle aspiration and core biopsies improves adequacy for extended molecular profiling,” the Hassan team wrote.
Ultrasound-guided sampling of peripheral lesions from the lung, pleura, or metastatic nodes or deposits achieves tissue diagnosis in lung cancer, and with an excellent yield. Radiologists and pulmonologists can perform the procedure.
Fine-needle aspiration and core biopsy are the two sampling methods used in ultrasound-guided biopsy. However, the researchers noted a lack of data comparing the efficacy of both methods.
Hassan and colleagues compared the yield from fine-needle aspiration and core biopsy samples of peripheral lesions sampled under ultrasound guidance in lung cancer patients. They also focused on adequacy for genomic profiling by using multitarget next-generation sequencing.
The study included 66 lung tissue samples. Ultrasound guidance led to a yield of 95.4% for identifying tissue type. The team observed no significant difference in yield between fine-needle aspiration (92.7%) and core biopsy (93.6%).
It also included 32 samples in analysis for multitarget next-generation sequencing, which achieved a success rate of 71.9%. Compared to using either fine-needle aspiration or core biopsy alone, which achieved a success rate of 66.7%, combining both sampling methods led to a 76.5% success rate.
The findings confirm ultrasound-guided biopsy as an effective technique for diagnosing lung cancer, the authors noted, adding that the yield is comparable to that of endobronchial ultrasound-guided samples. They also confirm that sampling via fine-needle aspiration is not inferior to core biopsy in lung cancer, the investigators said.
“The results show an advantage for combined sampling, as opposed to sampling with fine-needle aspiration or core biopsy alone,” they wrote. “This suggests that both sampling techniques should be attempted when feasible to maximize diagnostic and molecular success.”
The team called for prospective studies with standardized protocols to confirm its findings.
Read the full study here.