Search

Background: Computed tomography (CT) fluoroscopy nowadays is the most preferred method of guidance to perform percutaneous lung biopsy of pulmonary masses. Conventional fluoroscopy is an increasingly forgotten technique that still can be used to perform lung biopsies, with many advantages. Purpose: To compare the accuracy, safety, and effective dose (ED) of conventional fluoroscopy-guided needle lung biopsy (FNLB) with CT-guided needle lung biopsy procedures (CTNLB) reported in the literature. Material and Methods: 100 consecutive patients who underwent FNLB were reviewed retrospectively. Using the final histological diagnoses and the clinical and radiological course of the disease as references, the accuracy and sensitivity of FNLB were calculated. The complication rates of FNLB were assessed. Using computer software (XDOSE), the ED was calculated. The accuracy, complication rates, and the ED of FNLB were compared with CTNLB reported in the literature. Results: The overall accuracy rate and sensitivity of FNLB were both 87%, which are comparable to the range of accuracies reported in the literature for CTNLB (74-97%). The complication rates of FNLB were also comparable to the complication rates reported for CTNLB. The commonest complication was pneumothorax, at a rate of 25%. The ED of FNLB was small, significantly lower than reported in the literature for CT-guided procedures. The mean ED of FNLB was 0.029 mSv, which is approximately equivalent to one chest X-ray. Conclusion: Conventional fluoroscopy is an accurate, safe, and low-dose alternative modality to CT to obtain an image-guided histological diagnosis of pulmonary lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current pathway for men suspected of having prostate cancer [transrectal biopsy, followed in some cases by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging] results in over-diagnosis of insignificant tumours, and systematically misses disease in the anterior prostate. Multiparametric MRI has the potential to change this pathway, and if performed before biopsy, might enable the exclusion of significant disease in some men without biopsy, targeted biopsy in others, and improvements in the performance of active surveillance. For the potential benefits to be realized, the setting of standards is vital. This article summarizes the outcome of a meeting of UK radiologists, at which a consensus was achieved on (1) the indications for MRI, (2) the conduct of the scan, (3) a method and template for reporting, and (4) minimum standards for radiologists. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]