ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Routine radiology-pathology concordance evaluation of CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsies increases the number of cancers identified.
Article in European 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.
- Preventing missed malignancies: impact of standardized radiology-pathology concordance assessment in CT-guided omental and mesenteric biopsies.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Incidence of malignancy in lung lesions initially classified as organizing pneumonia on CT-guided biopsies.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine concordance evaluation between pathology and imaging findings was introduced for CT-guided biopsies. PURPOSE: To analyze malignancy rate in concordant, discordant, and indeterminate non-malignant results of CT-guided lung biopsies.
methodsConcordance between pathology results and imaging findings of consecutive patients undergoing CT-guided lung biopsy between 7/1/2016 and 9/30/2021 was assessed during routine meetings by procedural radiologists. Concordant was defined as pathology consistent with imaging findings; discordant was used when pathology could not explain imaging findings; indeterminate when pathology could explain imaging findings but there was concern for malignancy. Recommendations for discordant and indeterminate were provided. All the malignant results were concordant. Pathology of repeated biopsy, surgical sample, or follow-up was considered reference standard.
resultsConsecutive 828 CT-guided lung biopsies were performed on 795 patients (median age 70 years, IQR 61-77), 423/828 (51%) women. On pathology, 224/828 (27%) were non-malignant. Among the non-malignant, radiology-pathology concordance determined 138/224 (62%) to be concordant with imaging findings, 54/224 (24%) discordant, and 32/224 (14%) indeterminate. When compared to the reference standard, 33/54 (61%) discordant results, 6/30 (20%) indeterminate, and 3/133 (2%) concordant were malignant. The prevalence of malignancy in the three groups was significantly different (p < 0.001). Time to diagnosis was significantly different between patients who reached the diagnosis with imaging follow-up (median 114 days, IQR 69-206) compared to repeat biopsy (33 days, IQR 18-133) (p = 0.01).
conclusionRoutine radiology-pathology concordance evaluation of CT-guided lung biopsy correctly identifies patients at high risk for missed diagnosis of malignancy. Repeat biopsy is the fastest method to reach diagnosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A routine radiology-pathology concordance assessment identifies patients with non-malignant CT-guided lung biopsy result who are at greater risk of missed diagnosis of malignancy. KEY POINTS: • A routine radiology-pathology concordance evaluation of CT-guided lung biopsies classified 224 non-malignant results as concordant, discordant, or indeterminate. • The percentage of malignancy on follow-up was significantly different in concordant (2%), discordant (61%), and indeterminate (20%) (p < 0.001). • Time to definitive diagnosis was significantly shorter with repeat biopsy (33 days), compared to imaging follow-up (114 days), p = 0.01.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37857902What 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.