dc.contributor.author | Fotiadis, N | |
dc.contributor.author | De Paepe, KN | |
dc.contributor.author | Bonne, L | |
dc.contributor.author | Khan, N | |
dc.contributor.author | Riddell, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Turner, N | |
dc.contributor.author | Starling, N | |
dc.contributor.author | Gerlinger, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Rao, S | |
dc.contributor.author | Chau, I | |
dc.contributor.author | Cunningham, D | |
dc.contributor.author | Koh, D-M | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-08-27T08:50:23Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-07-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | European radiology, 2020, 30 (12), pp. 6702 - 6708 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0938-7994 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/4028 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1432-1084 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s00330-020-07038-7 | |
dc.description.abstract | OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) poses specific challenges in oncological patients such as bleeding and tumour seeding. This study's aim was to compare a coaxial (C-PLB) and non-coaxial (NC-PLB) biopsy technique in terms of diagnostic yield, safety and seeding risk of image-guided PLB techniques in an oncological setting. METHODS: Local research committee approval was obtained for this single-site retrospective study. Patients who underwent a PLB between November 2011 and December 2017 were consecutively included. Medical records were reviewed to determine diagnostic yield and complications. Follow-up imaging was re-reviewed for seeding, defined as visible tumour deposits along the PLB track. Mann-Whitney U and chi-squared tests were performed to investigate differences between biopsy techniques in sample number, complications and seeding rate. RESULTS: In total, 741 patients (62 ± 13 years, 378 women) underwent 932 PLB (C-PLB 72.9% (679/932); NC-PLB 27.1% (253/932)). More tissue cores (p < 0.001) were obtained with C-PLB (median 4 cores; range 1-12) compared with NC-PLB (2 cores; range 1-4) and diagnostic yield was similar for both techniques (C-PLB 92.6% (629/679); NC-PLB 92.5% (234/253); p = 0.940). Complication rate (9.3%; 87/932) using C-PLB (8.2% (56/679)) was lower compared with NC-PLB (12.3% (31/253); p = 0.024). Major complications were uncommon (C-PLB 2.7% (18/679); NC-PLB 2.8% (7/253)); bleeding developed in 1.2% (11/932; C-PLB 1.2% (8/679); NC-PLB 1.2% (3/253)). Seeding was a rare event, occurring significantly less in C-PLB cases (C-PLB 1.3% (7/544); NC-PLB 3.1% (6/197); p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: C-PLB allows for high diagnostic tissue yield with a lower complication and seeding rate than a NC-PLB and should be the preferred method in an oncological setting. KEY POINTS: • A coaxial percutaneous liver biopsy achieves a significant higher number of cores and fewer complications than a non-coaxial biopsy technique. • The risk of tumour seeding is very low and is significantly lower using the coaxial biopsy technique. • In this study, a larger number of cores (median = 4) could be safely acquired using the coaxial technique, providing sufficient material for advanced molecular analysis. | |
dc.format | Print-Electronic | |
dc.format.extent | 6702 - 6708 | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | SPRINGER | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
dc.title | Comparison of a coaxial versus non-coaxial liver biopsy technique in an oncological setting: diagnostic yield, complications and seeding risk. | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2020-06-16 | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1007/s00330-020-07038-7 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2020-12 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
dc.relation.isPartOf | European radiology | |
pubs.issue | 12 | |
pubs.notes | Not known | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Breast Cancer Research | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Breast Cancer Research/Molecular Oncology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Medicine (RMH Smith Cunningham) | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Medicine (RMH Smith Cunningham)/Medicine (RMH Smith Cunningham) (hon.) | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology/Translational Oncogenomics | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Breast Cancer Research | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Breast Cancer Research/Molecular Oncology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Medicine (RMH Smith Cunningham) | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Medicine (RMH Smith Cunningham)/Medicine (RMH Smith Cunningham) (hon.) | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology/Translational Oncogenomics | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units | |
pubs.publication-status | Published | |
pubs.volume | 30 | |
pubs.embargo.terms | Not known | |
icr.researchteam | Molecular Oncology | |
icr.researchteam | Medicine (RMH Smith Cunningham) | |
icr.researchteam | Translational Oncogenomics | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | Turner, Nicholas | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | Gerlinger, Marco | |