CORE
CO
nnecting
RE
positories
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Research partnership
About
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Community governance
Governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
Innovations
Our research
Labs
Search results
>
Research work
Diagnosing Lymphoproliferative Disorders Using Core Needle Biopsy Versus Surgical Excisional Biopsy: Three-Year Experience of a Reference Center in Lebanon
Authors
Nada P. Assaf
Ali Abdul Hamid Bazarbachi
+4 more
Zaher I. Chakhachiro
Samer R. Nassif
Hani Mohammed Tamim
Ghazi S. Zaatari
Publication date
1 January 2020
Publisher
Elsevier Inc.
Doi
Abstract
Because of a trend of increased use of core needle biopsies (CNB) for the diagnosis of lymphoma, we aimed to assess the efficacy of CNB compared to surgical excisional biopsy. The 373 biopsy samples were assessed by specialized hematopathologists. CNB is in frequent use in lymphoma assessment, and it can provide enough sample material for adequate lymphoma diagnosis and classification. © 2019 Elsevier Inc.; Background: Despite current guidelines, a significant increase in the use of core needle biopsy (CNB) has been noted. Our aims were to determine the profile of patients referred for image-guided biopsies, to assess the diagnostic yield of these biopsies, and to learn whether CNB is an effective alternative to surgical excisional biopsy (SEB). Patients and Methods: All lymph node biopsy samples evaluated in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine from 2014 to 2017 were included. Patients’ demographics, biopsy type, and final diagnosis were recorded and classified as diagnostic or nondiagnostic. The reasons for the latter were evaluated and follow-up was obtained, where available. Results: A total of 373 cases, 210 CNB and 163 SEB, were collected. The diagnostic yield was 79% for CNB compared to 97% for SEB. The choice of CNB versus SEB was not dependent on patient's age, gender, or clinical suspicion of malignancy. Failure to reach a diagnosis was due to insufficient or suboptimal tissue in most nondiagnostic CNBs. Lymphoma was equally diagnosed among CNB and SEB. CNB was at an advantage in diagnosing large B-cell lymphomas. Conclusion: When performed adequately, CNB is a good substitute for SEB. Strict and specific guidelines need to be updated and adopted to indicate how and when it can be used, including the recommendation of concomitant complementary diagnostic laboratory testing such as flow cytometry. The latter should be readily available in order to not compromise the quality and accuracy of the diagnoses. © 2019 Elsevier Inc
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
AUB ScholarWorks (American Univ. of Beirut)
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:scholarworks.aub.edu.lb:10...
Last time updated on 16/04/2025