Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34707215›Full record

ArticleNPJ precision oncology2021

An analysis of research biopsy core variability from over 5000 prospectively collected core samples.

Deepak Bhamidipati, Anuj Verma, Dawen Sui, Dipen Maru, Grace Mathew, Wenhua Lang, Juan Posadas, Joshua Hein, Scott Kopetz, Andrew Futreal and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. ISUOG/ESGO Consensus Statement on ultrasound-guided biopsy in gynecological oncology.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Novel Biopsy Gun Impacts Biopsy Sample Quality and Quantity.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. A clinical evaluation of anFrontiers in medicine · 2023
    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

15 authors.

Deepak BhamidipatiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Anuj VermaDepartment of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Dawen SuiDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Dipen MaruDepartment of Pathology, Anatomical, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Grace MathewDepartment of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Wenhua LangDepartment of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Juan PosadasDepartment of Quantitative Research Computing, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Joshua HeinDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Scott KopetzDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Andrew FutrealDepartment of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Ignacio I WistubaDepartment of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Sanjay GuptaDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
J Jack LeeDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5469-9214
Michael J OvermanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. moverman@mdanderson.org.
Alda L TamDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. alda.tam@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Project 3: Inhibiting Oxidative Phosphorylation in Pancreatic CancerP50CA221707 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI KOPETZ, SCOTT, MAITRA, ANIRBAN · 2019 to 2023
$11.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P50 CA221707
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Factors correlated with biopsy tissue adequacy and the prevalence of within-biopsy variability were evaluated. Totally, 1149 research biopsies were performed on 686 patients from which 5090 cores were assessed. Biopsy cores were reviewed for malignant percentage (estimated percentage of cells in the core that were malignant) and malignant area (estimated area occupied by malignant cells). Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models were used for the analysis. A total of 641 (55.8%) biopsies contained a core with <10% malignant percentage (inadequate core). The chance of an inadequate core was not influenced by core order, though the malignant area decreased with each consecutive core (p < 0.001). Younger age, bone biopsy location, appendiceal tumor pathology, and responding/stable disease prior to biopsy increased the odds of a biopsy containing zero adequate cores. Within-biopsy variability in core adequacy is prevalent and suggests the need for histological tumor quality assessment of each core in order to optimize translational analyses.

Identifiers

PMID34707215
PMCPMC8551285

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.