Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33317239›Full record

ArticleClinical and molecular hepatology2021

Direct comparison of biopsy techniques for hepatic malignancies.

Shang-Chin Huang, Ja-Der Liang, Shih-Jer Hsu, Tzu-Chan Hong, Hung-Chih Yang, Jia-Horng Kao

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Biopsy or cytology for diagnosing hepatic focal lesions?Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shang-Chin HuangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ja-Der LiangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Shih-Jer HsuDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tzu-Chan HongDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital Bei-Hu Branch, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hung-Chih YangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jia-Horng KaoDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
National Taiwan University Hospital · TWNational Taiwan University · TW

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan, Taiwan 107-2314-B-002-036-MY3National Taiwan University Hospital 108-S254
6 · The paper itself

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

Liver NeoplasmsBiopsy, Fine-NeedleBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleHumansSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyBiopsyCytologyHistologyLiver cancerUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID33317239
PMCPMC8046634
OpenAlexW3112004360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.