ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Evaluation of biopsy results during vertebral augmentation in patients with a known history of malignancy.
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards optimized biopsy use in vertebral compression fractures: integrating risk assessment for better clinical decision-making.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Case Report: A case of femoral metastatic cancer misdiagnosed as isolated femoral lesser trochanter avulsion fracture.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate biopsy results during vertebral augmentation in vertebral compression fracture (VCF) patients with a known history of malignancy.
methodsAn analysis of vertebral augmentation between 2012 and 2021 was performed retrospectively. Each level of VCF was biopsied, and all biopsies were sent for histopathological analyses. Imaging evaluation was performed in collaboration with an oncologist, a spine surgeon, and a radiologist. Patients were divided into two groups based on the preoperative imaging findings. Malignant VCF (MVCF) was presumed in group A, while osteoporotic VCF (OVCF) was presumed in group B.
resultsOne hundred and fifty-six VCF patients with a known history of malignancy were included. Group A included 91 patients with preoperative imaging findings suspicious for MVCF. And 73 patients were finally diagnosed as MVCF, with biopsy results confirming imaging findings. The incidence of MVCF was 46.8%. Group B included 65 patients with imaging evidence of OVCF. And all biopsy results were negative for malignancy. The sensitivity of imaging evaluation for finding MVCF was 100%, and the specificity was 78.3%.
conclusionA combination of X-ray, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is sufficient to distinguish MVCF from OVCF. Biopsy is not required to confirm the diagnosis during vertebral augmentation, if the imaging findings do not indicate MVCF in patients with a known history of malignancy. It is recommended to perform a biopsy in patients with preoperative imaging findings suspicious for MVCF. KEY POINTS: • A combination of X-ray, CT, and MRI is sufficient to distinguish MVCF from OVCF. • Biopsy is not required in patients without imaging signs of MVCF. • Biopsy is recommended in patients with imaging findings suspicious for MVCF.
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.