ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2024
Prospective evaluation of core number of biopsy for renal tumor: are multiple cores preferable?
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive review of current evidence and future directions.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Advances in renal cancer: diagnosis, treatment, and emerging technologies.La Radiologia medica · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis single-center, single-arm, prospective, open-label study was conducted to evaluate the optimal number of cores (single or multiple) in renal tumor biopsy. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-four biopsies of 44 tumors (mean diameter, 2.7 ± 1.0 cm; range, 1.6-5.0 cm) were included. Biopsy was performed under ultrasound or computed tomography fluoroscopy guidance using an 18-gauge cutting needle and the co-axial method. Two or more specimens were obtained, which were divided into first and subsequent specimens. "First specimen" and "all specimens" were histologically evaluated (i.e., appropriateness of specimen, histological diagnosis, subtype, and Fuhrman grade of renal cell carcinoma [RCC]) blindly and independently by two board-certified pathologists.
resultsMultiple specimens were successfully and safely obtained in all the biopsies. All tumors were histologically diagnosed; 40 malignancies included 39 RCCs and 1 solitary fibrous tumor, and 4 benign lesions included 2 angiomyolipomas, 1 oncocytoma, and 1 capillary hemangioma. In all RCCs, the subtype could be determined (32 clear cell RCCs, 4 chromophobe RCCs, and 3 papillary RCCs), and the Furman grade was determined in 38 RCCs. When only the first specimen was evaluated, 22.7% of the specimens were inappropriate for diagnosis, and 34 (77.3%) were histologically diagnosed. The diagnostic yield was significantly lower than that of all specimens (P = 0.0044). Univariate analysis revealed that smaller lesions were a significant predictor of diagnostic failure (P = 0.020).
conclusionBiopsy with multiple cores significantly improved diagnostic yield. Thus, operators should obtain multiple cores during renal tumor biopsy.
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.