Fine-Needle Aspiration Versus Core Needle Biopsy for Malignant Cervical Lymphadenopathy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

IF 1.6 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
OTO Open Pub Date : 2026-03-09 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1002/oto2.70218
Sacha Moufarrej, Kavenpreet S Bal, Alexander Rivero, Miranda L Weintraub, Thomas L Haupt, Kevin H Wang
{"title":"Fine-Needle Aspiration Versus Core Needle Biopsy for Malignant Cervical Lymphadenopathy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.","authors":"Sacha Moufarrej, Kavenpreet S Bal, Alexander Rivero, Miranda L Weintraub, Thomas L Haupt, Kevin H Wang","doi":"10.1002/oto2.70218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Cervical lymphadenopathy is a common presentation in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, often requiring biopsy to exclude malignancy. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard initial diagnostic tool; however, evidence from other anatomical sites suggests that core needle biopsy (CNB) may offer superior diagnostic performance. This systematic review aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNA versus CNB for adult cervical lymphadenopathy.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies published between 1995 and 2025 evaluating FNA versus CNB for adult cervical lymphadenopathy. Studies lacking extractable cervical lymphadenopathy data were excluded.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Two investigators independently screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics and diagnostic performance. A meta-analysis was performed in Stata using a random-effects model, and a quality assessment was conducted using the QUADAS-2 criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2523 abstracts identified, 6 studies met inclusion criteria, with 5 providing adequate data for meta-analysis (total n = 649 patients, 331 FNA, 318 CNB). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were higher for CNB (0.94 and 0.98, respectively) compared to FNA (0.72 and 0.96; <i>P</i> < .001). CNB was 1.32 times more sensitive than FNA in detecting malignancy (<i>P</i> < .001). Both techniques had low complication rates. Study heterogeneity was low to moderate, and risk of bias was similarly moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CNB demonstrates significantly greater diagnostic accuracy than FNA in detecting malignant cervical lymphadenopathy without increased complication risk. While further studies are warranted, these findings support greater consideration of CNB as a first-line diagnostic test to minimize inconclusive results and diagnostic delays.</p>","PeriodicalId":19697,"journal":{"name":"OTO Open","volume":"10 1","pages":"e70218"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12969487/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTO Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.70218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Cervical lymphadenopathy is a common presentation in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, often requiring biopsy to exclude malignancy. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard initial diagnostic tool; however, evidence from other anatomical sites suggests that core needle biopsy (CNB) may offer superior diagnostic performance. This systematic review aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNA versus CNB for adult cervical lymphadenopathy.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies published between 1995 and 2025 evaluating FNA versus CNB for adult cervical lymphadenopathy. Studies lacking extractable cervical lymphadenopathy data were excluded.

Review methods: Two investigators independently screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics and diagnostic performance. A meta-analysis was performed in Stata using a random-effects model, and a quality assessment was conducted using the QUADAS-2 criteria.

Results: Of 2523 abstracts identified, 6 studies met inclusion criteria, with 5 providing adequate data for meta-analysis (total n = 649 patients, 331 FNA, 318 CNB). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were higher for CNB (0.94 and 0.98, respectively) compared to FNA (0.72 and 0.96; P < .001). CNB was 1.32 times more sensitive than FNA in detecting malignancy (P < .001). Both techniques had low complication rates. Study heterogeneity was low to moderate, and risk of bias was similarly moderate.

Conclusion: CNB demonstrates significantly greater diagnostic accuracy than FNA in detecting malignant cervical lymphadenopathy without increased complication risk. While further studies are warranted, these findings support greater consideration of CNB as a first-line diagnostic test to minimize inconclusive results and diagnostic delays.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

细针穿刺与芯针活检治疗恶性宫颈淋巴结病:荟萃分析和系统评价。
目的:颈淋巴肿大是耳鼻喉头颈外科的常见表现,通常需要活检来排除恶性肿瘤。细针抽吸(FNA)是标准的初始诊断工具;然而,来自其他解剖部位的证据表明,核心针活检(CNB)可能具有更好的诊断性能。本系统综述旨在比较FNA与CNB对成人颈淋巴肿大的诊断准确性和安全性。数据来源:系统检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库,检索1995年至2025年间发表的评价FNA与CNB治疗成人宫颈淋巴结病的研究。缺乏可提取的宫颈淋巴结病变资料的研究被排除在外。回顾方法:两名研究者独立筛选研究并提取研究特征和诊断表现的数据。在Stata中使用随机效应模型进行meta分析,并使用QUADAS-2标准进行质量评估。结果:在纳入的2523篇摘要中,6项研究符合纳入标准,其中5项研究提供了足够的数据进行meta分析(共n = 649例患者,331例FNA, 318例CNB)。结论:CNB对宫颈恶性淋巴结病的诊断准确率明显高于FNA(0.72、0.96),且未增加并发症风险。虽然需要进一步的研究,但这些发现支持更多地考虑将CNB作为一线诊断测试,以尽量减少不确定的结果和诊断延误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
OTO Open
OTO Open Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书