Relative Sensitivity of Core-Needle Biopsy and Incisional Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Musculoskeletal Sarcomas.

Abstract

Simple SummaryA precise diagnosis is key in the correct treatment of sarcomas. However, which kind of biopsy should be done: A minimal invasive core needle biopsy (CNB) or an incisional biopsy (IB), yielding more tissue but requiring surgery? We compared the results of both methods after resection of musculoskeletal sarcomas in respect to the accuracy of the diagnosis. In total, 417 patients with 472 biopsies and final sarcoma diagnoses were included. The rate of unequivocal sarcoma diagnoses was 84.9% with CNB vs. 87.6% with IB (p = 0.465). The rate of repeat biopsies was higher with CNB as compared to IB (p = 0.003). There was no difference in the determination of the sarcoma subtype or the grade of malignancy. Sarcoma subtype, bone vs. soft tissue, and the biopsy technique utilized did not influence the sensitivity. The single exception to this was with chondrosarcomas, where IB was significantly superior to CNB (p = 0.024). Based on our data, the minimal invasive technique can be used without disadvantages in the majority of patients.Background: There is no evidence as to the diagnostic value of the two most frequently used methods of biopsies in sarcomas: Incisional or core needle biopsy. The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of the incisional and the core needle biopsy techniques in the diagnosis of bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Methods: We included 417 patients with a definitive diagnosis of bone or soft tissue sarcoma in whom a total of 472 biopsies had been performed. We correlated the results of the biopsies with the result of the definitive histopathological examination of the resected tumor. Dignity, entity, and grading (whenever possible) of the tissue samples were evaluated. Results: A total of 258 biopsies (55%) were performed in order to diagnose a soft tissue tumor and 351 biopsies (74.4%) were core needle biopsies. The number of repeat core needle biopsies, necessitated because of inconclusive histopathological results, was significantly higher (50 vs. 5; p = 0.003). We observed no significant difference regarding dignity, entity, and grading between the 2 different types of biopsies. Only with regards to the determination of dignity and entity of chondroid tumors, incisional biopsy was superior with statistical significance (p = 0.024). Conclusions: This study represents the largest study on biopsies for bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Based only on our results, we are unable to favor one method of biopsy and found high accuracy with both methods. Considering the potential complications, the added oncological risks of incisional biopsies and the ready availability of core needle biopsies, the latter, in our assessment, represents a valid and favourable method for bone and soft tissue sarcomas.