Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28770407›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour cutting needle biopsy: retrospective evaluation of diagnostic yield, safety, and risk factors for diagnostic failure.

Toshihiro Iguchi, Takao Hiraki, Yusuke Matsui, Hiroyasu Fujiwara, Jun Sakurai, Yoshihisa Masaoka, Hideo Gobara, Susumu Kanazawa

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Computed Tomography-guided Core Needle Biopsy for Renal Tumors: A Review.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Toshihiro IguchiDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan. iguchi@ba2.so-net.ne.jp.
Takao HirakiDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Yusuke MatsuiDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Hiroyasu FujiwaraDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Jun SakuraiDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Yoshihisa MasaokaDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Hideo GobaraDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Susumu KanazawaDepartment of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan.
Okayama University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate retrospectively the diagnostic yield, safety, and risk factors for diagnostic failure of computed tomography (CT) fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour biopsy.

methodsBiopsies were performed for 208 tumours (mean diameter 2.3 cm; median diameter 2.1 cm; range 0.9-8.5 cm) in 199 patients. One hundred and ninety-nine tumours were ≤4 cm. All 208 initial procedures were divided into diagnostic success and failure groups. Multiple variables related to the patients, lesions, and procedures were assessed to determine the risk factors for diagnostic failure.

resultsAfter performing 208 initial and nine repeat biopsies, 180 malignancies and 15 benign tumours were pathologically diagnosed, whereas 13 were not diagnosed. In 117 procedures, 118 Grade I and one Grade IIIa adverse events (AEs) occurred. Neither Grade ≥IIIb AEs nor tumour seeding were observed within a median follow-up period of 13.7 months. Logistic regression analysis revealed only small tumour size (≤1.5 cm; odds ratio 3.750; 95% confidence interval 1.362-10.326; P = 0.011) to be a significant risk factor for diagnostic failure.

conclusionCT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour biopsy is a safe procedure with a high diagnostic yield. A small tumour size (≤1.5 cm) is a significant risk factor for diagnostic failure. KEY POINTS: • CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour biopsy has a high diagnostic yield. • CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour biopsy is safe. • Small tumour size (≤1.5 cm) is a risk factor for diagnostic failure.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsy, NeedleFemaleFluoroscopyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyKidneyKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung AdultBiopsyFluoroscopyKidneyTomographyTumour

Identifiers

PMID28770407
OpenAlexW2739986788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.