Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32951126›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2021

Evaluation of 311 contemporary cases of stereotactic biopsies in patients with neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions-diagnostic yield and management of non-diagnostic cases.

Krystyna Agnieszka Pasternak, Michael Schwake, Nils Warneke, Max Masthoff, Samer Zawy Alsofy, Eric Suero Molina, Walter Stummer, Stephanie Schipmann

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Krystyna Agnieszka PasternakDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Michael SchwakeDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Nils WarnekeDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Max MasthoffInstitute of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Muenster, Münster, Germany.
Samer Zawy AlsofyDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Eric Suero MolinaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Walter StummerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Stephanie SchipmannDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. stephanie.schipmann@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9971-2256
University Hospital Münster · DEWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stereotactic biopsies are an established tool for obtaining diagnosis of unclear brain lesions. However, non-diagnostic biopsies still occur. We aimed to analyze the contemporary diagnostic yield of stereotactic biopsies, predictors for non-diagnostic biopsies, outcome, and follow-up strategy after non-diagnostic biopsy. We conducted a single-center retrospective study of 311 adult patients undergoing stereotactic biopsies due to a newly diagnosed lesion at our department between 2012 and 2018. Patient data regarding comorbidities, presenting symptoms, imaging features, and non-invasive diagnostic procedures were obtained. The overall diagnostic yield was 86.2% and differed significantly between the various suspected diagnosis groups and was the highest when suspecting primary brain tumor compared with non-neoplastic lesions (91.2% vs. 73.3%, p > 0.001). Predicators for non-diagnostic biopsies were small lesion size, lack of contrast-enhancement, presence of sepsis, or underlying hemato-oncological disease. In case of non-diagnostic biopsy, a re-biopsy was performed in 12 cases, revealing a final diagnosis in 75%. In 16 cases, empiric therapy was started based on the suspected underlying disease. Close follow-up was performed in the remaining 15 cases. We showed that stereotactic biopsy is a safe procedure with reasonable diagnostic yield even for non-neoplastic lesions, when non-invasive diagnostic was inconclusive. In addition, we developed treatment recommendations for cases of non-diagnostic biopsies.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsStereotaxic TechniquesAdultBiopsyBrainHumansRetrospective StudiesBrain lesionDiagnostic yieldGliomaNon-diagnostic biopsyStereotactic biopsyVasculitis

Identifiers

PMID32951126
PMCPMC8490258
OpenAlexW3087233525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.