ArticleClinical and molecular hepatology2021
Direct comparison of biopsy techniques for hepatic malignancies.
Article in Clinical and molecular hepatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined Single-Session Stereotactic Biopsy and Microwave Ablation of Primary and Secondary Liver Tumors.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Novel and less invasive biomarker assays to measure liver ATP7B in Wilson disease patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Risk factors of non-diagnostic percutaneous liver tumor biopsy: a single-center retrospective analysis of 938 biopsies based on cause of error.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Patient-Derived Organoids as Therapy Screening Platforms in Cancer Patients.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024Review
- Update on the Screening, Diagnosis, and Management of Cholangiocarcinoma.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Article
- Refining Liver Biopsy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An In-Depth Exploration of Shifting Diagnostic and Therapeutic Applications.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Sensitivity of cytology in liver tumor biopsy and its significance in the prompt clinical diagnosis of non-hepatocellular carcinoma.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Usefulness of on-site cytology of liver tumor biopsy in specimen sampling for cancer genomic profiling test.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Touch Imprint Intraoperative Flow Cytometry as a Complementary Tool for Detailed Assessment of Resection Margins and Tumor Biology in Liver Surgery for Primary and Metastatic Liver Neoplasms.Methods and protocols · 2021Article
- Biopsy or cytology for diagnosing hepatic focal lesions?Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe core needle biopsy (CNB), fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and touch imprint cytology (TIC) are commonly used tools for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. However, little is known about the benefits and criteria for selecting appropriate technique among them in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of ultrasound-guided CNB, FNAC, TIC as well as combinations for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies, and to determine the factors associated with better sensitivity in each technique.
methodsFrom January 2018 to December 2019, a total of 634 consecutive patients who received ultrasound-guided liver biopsies at the National Taiwan University Hospital was collected, of whom 235 with confirmed malignant hepatic lesions receiving CNB, FNAC and TIC simultaneously were enrolled for analysis. The clinical and procedural data were compared.
resultsThe sensitivity of CNB, FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of malignant hepatic lesions were 93.6%, 71.9%, and 85.1%, respectively. Add-on use of FNAC or TIC to CNB provided additional sensitivity of 2.1% and 0.4%, respectively. FNAC exhibited a significantly higher diagnostic rate in the metastatic cancers (P=0.011), hyperechoic lesions on ultrasound (P=0.028), and those with depth less than 4.5 cm from the site of needle insertion (P=0.036).
conclusionThe sensitivity of CNB is superior to that of FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. Nevertheless, for shallow (depth <4.5 cm) and hyperechoic lesions not typical for primary liver cancers, FNAC alone provides excellent sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.