无诊断性经皮肝肿瘤活检的风险因素:根据错误原因对938例活检进行的单中心回顾性分析。

IF 2.1 4区 医学
Japanese Journal of Radiology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1007/s11604-024-01703-3
Shintaro Kimura, Miyuki Sone, Shunsuke Sugawara, Chihiro Itou, Takumi Oshima, Mizuki Ozawa, Rakuhei Nakama, Sho Murakami, Yoshiyuki Matsui, Yasuaki Arai, Masahiko Kusumoto
{"title":"无诊断性经皮肝肿瘤活检的风险因素:根据错误原因对938例活检进行的单中心回顾性分析。","authors":"Shintaro Kimura, Miyuki Sone, Shunsuke Sugawara, Chihiro Itou, Takumi Oshima, Mizuki Ozawa, Rakuhei Nakama, Sho Murakami, Yoshiyuki Matsui, Yasuaki Arai, Masahiko Kusumoto","doi":"10.1007/s11604-024-01703-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the risk factors of non-diagnostic results based on cause of error in liver tumor biopsy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This single-institution, retrospective study included 843 patients [445 men, 398 women; median age, 67 years] who underwent a total of 938 liver tumor biopsies between April 2018 and September 2022. An 18-G cutting biopsy needle with a 17-G introducer needle was used. Ultrasound was used as the first choice for image guidance, and computed tomography was alternatively or complementarily used only for tumors with poor ultrasound visibility. Non-diagnostic biopsies were divided into two groups depending on the cause of error, either technical or targeting error. Biopsies in which the biopsy needle did not hit the target tumor were classified as technical error. Biopsies in which insufficient tissue was obtained due to necrosis or degeneration despite the biopsy needle hitting the target tumor were classified as targeting error. This classification was based on pre-procedural enhanced-imaging, intro-procedural imaging, and pathological findings. Statistical analysis was performed using binary logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The non-diagnostic rate was 4.6%. Twenty-six and seventeen biopsies were classified as technical and targeting errors, respectively. In the technical error group, tumor size ≤ 17 mm and computed tomography-assisted biopsy due to poor ultrasound visibility were identified as risk factors (p < 0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively), and the tumors with both factors had a significantly high risk of technical error compared to those without both factors (non-diagnostic rate: 17.2 vs 1.1%, p < 0.001). In the targeting error group, tumor size ≥ 42 mm was identified as a risk factor (p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tumor size ≤ 17 mm and computed tomography-assisted biopsy due to poor ultrasound visibility were risk factors for technical error, and tumor size ≥ 42 mm was a risk factor for targeting error in liver tumor biopsies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14691,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"696-705"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11953201/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk factors of non-diagnostic percutaneous liver tumor biopsy: a single-center retrospective analysis of 938 biopsies based on cause of error.\",\"authors\":\"Shintaro Kimura, Miyuki Sone, Shunsuke Sugawara, Chihiro Itou, Takumi Oshima, Mizuki Ozawa, Rakuhei Nakama, Sho Murakami, Yoshiyuki Matsui, Yasuaki Arai, Masahiko Kusumoto\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11604-024-01703-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the risk factors of non-diagnostic results based on cause of error in liver tumor biopsy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This single-institution, retrospective study included 843 patients [445 men, 398 women; median age, 67 years] who underwent a total of 938 liver tumor biopsies between April 2018 and September 2022. An 18-G cutting biopsy needle with a 17-G introducer needle was used. Ultrasound was used as the first choice for image guidance, and computed tomography was alternatively or complementarily used only for tumors with poor ultrasound visibility. Non-diagnostic biopsies were divided into two groups depending on the cause of error, either technical or targeting error. Biopsies in which the biopsy needle did not hit the target tumor were classified as technical error. Biopsies in which insufficient tissue was obtained due to necrosis or degeneration despite the biopsy needle hitting the target tumor were classified as targeting error. This classification was based on pre-procedural enhanced-imaging, intro-procedural imaging, and pathological findings. Statistical analysis was performed using binary logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The non-diagnostic rate was 4.6%. Twenty-six and seventeen biopsies were classified as technical and targeting errors, respectively. In the technical error group, tumor size ≤ 17 mm and computed tomography-assisted biopsy due to poor ultrasound visibility were identified as risk factors (p < 0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively), and the tumors with both factors had a significantly high risk of technical error compared to those without both factors (non-diagnostic rate: 17.2 vs 1.1%, p < 0.001). In the targeting error group, tumor size ≥ 42 mm was identified as a risk factor (p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tumor size ≤ 17 mm and computed tomography-assisted biopsy due to poor ultrasound visibility were risk factors for technical error, and tumor size ≥ 42 mm was a risk factor for targeting error in liver tumor biopsies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Japanese Journal of Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"696-705\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11953201/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Japanese Journal of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-024-01703-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-024-01703-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:根据肝脏肿瘤活检的错误原因,评估无诊断结果的风险因素:这项单一机构的回顾性研究纳入了 843 名患者[男性 445 人,女性 398 人;中位年龄 67 岁],他们在 2018 年 4 月至 2022 年 9 月期间接受了共计 938 例肝脏肿瘤活检。使用的是 18 G 切开活检针和 17 G 导入针。超声波是图像引导的首选,计算机断层扫描仅用于超声波能见度差的肿瘤,作为替代或补充。非诊断性活检根据错误原因(技术错误或定位错误)分为两组。活检针未刺中目标肿瘤的活检被归类为技术错误。活检针虽然刺中了目标肿瘤,但由于坏死或变性而无法获得足够组织的活检被归类为定位错误。这一分类基于术前增强成像、术中成像和病理结果。统计分析采用二元逻辑回归法:结果:非诊断率为 4.6%。26例和17例活检分别被归类为技术错误和定位错误。在技术错误组中,肿瘤大小≤17 毫米和因超声波能见度差而采用计算机断层扫描辅助活检被确定为风险因素(P在肝脏肿瘤活检中,肿瘤大小≤17 毫米和计算机断层扫描辅助活检因超声波能见度差是技术错误的风险因素,而肿瘤大小≥42 毫米是靶向错误的风险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk factors of non-diagnostic percutaneous liver tumor biopsy: a single-center retrospective analysis of 938 biopsies based on cause of error.

Purpose: To evaluate the risk factors of non-diagnostic results based on cause of error in liver tumor biopsy.

Materials and methods: This single-institution, retrospective study included 843 patients [445 men, 398 women; median age, 67 years] who underwent a total of 938 liver tumor biopsies between April 2018 and September 2022. An 18-G cutting biopsy needle with a 17-G introducer needle was used. Ultrasound was used as the first choice for image guidance, and computed tomography was alternatively or complementarily used only for tumors with poor ultrasound visibility. Non-diagnostic biopsies were divided into two groups depending on the cause of error, either technical or targeting error. Biopsies in which the biopsy needle did not hit the target tumor were classified as technical error. Biopsies in which insufficient tissue was obtained due to necrosis or degeneration despite the biopsy needle hitting the target tumor were classified as targeting error. This classification was based on pre-procedural enhanced-imaging, intro-procedural imaging, and pathological findings. Statistical analysis was performed using binary logistic regression.

Results: The non-diagnostic rate was 4.6%. Twenty-six and seventeen biopsies were classified as technical and targeting errors, respectively. In the technical error group, tumor size ≤ 17 mm and computed tomography-assisted biopsy due to poor ultrasound visibility were identified as risk factors (p < 0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively), and the tumors with both factors had a significantly high risk of technical error compared to those without both factors (non-diagnostic rate: 17.2 vs 1.1%, p < 0.001). In the targeting error group, tumor size ≥ 42 mm was identified as a risk factor (p = 0.003).

Conclusion: Tumor size ≤ 17 mm and computed tomography-assisted biopsy due to poor ultrasound visibility were risk factors for technical error, and tumor size ≥ 42 mm was a risk factor for targeting error in liver tumor biopsies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Japanese Journal of Radiology
Japanese Journal of Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
自引率
4.80%
发文量
133
期刊介绍: Japanese Journal of Radiology is a peer-reviewed journal, officially published by the Japan Radiological Society. The main purpose of the journal is to provide a forum for the publication of papers documenting recent advances and new developments in the field of radiology in medicine and biology. The scope of Japanese Journal of Radiology encompasses but is not restricted to diagnostic radiology, interventional radiology, radiation oncology, nuclear medicine, radiation physics, and radiation biology. Additionally, the journal covers technical and industrial innovations. The journal welcomes original articles, technical notes, review articles, pictorial essays and letters to the editor. The journal also provides announcements from the boards and the committees of the society. Membership in the Japan Radiological Society is not a prerequisite for submission. Contributions are welcomed from all parts of the world.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信