Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFotiadis, N
dc.contributor.authorDe Paepe, KN
dc.contributor.authorBonne, L
dc.contributor.authorKhan, N
dc.contributor.authorRiddell, A
dc.contributor.authorTurner, N
dc.contributor.authorStarling, N
dc.contributor.authorGerlinger, M
dc.contributor.authorRao, S
dc.contributor.authorChau, I
dc.contributor.authorCunningham, D
dc.contributor.authorKoh, D-M
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-27T08:50:23Z
dc.date.issued2020-07-14
dc.identifier.citationEuropean radiology, 2020, 30 (12), pp. 6702 - 6708
dc.identifier.issn0938-7994
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/4028
dc.identifier.eissn1432-1084
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00330-020-07038-7
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: 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.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent6702 - 6708
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSPRINGER
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.titleComparison of a coaxial versus non-coaxial liver biopsy technique in an oncological setting: diagnostic yield, complications and seeding risk.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-06-16
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s00330-020-07038-7
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-12
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfEuropean radiology
pubs.issue12
pubs.notesNot 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-statusPublished
pubs.volume30
pubs.embargo.termsNot known
icr.researchteamMolecular Oncology
icr.researchteamMedicine (RMH Smith Cunningham)
icr.researchteamTranslational Oncogenomics
dc.contributor.icrauthorTurner, Nicholas
dc.contributor.icrauthorGerlinger, Marco


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0