ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
Risk factors of non-diagnostic percutaneous liver tumor biopsy: a single-center retrospective analysis of 938 biopsies based on cause of error.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. 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.
- Combined Single-Session Stereotactic Biopsy and Microwave Ablation of Primary and Secondary Liver Tumors.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Susceptibility-Weighted Breast MRI Differentiates Abscesses from Necrotic Tumors: A Prospective Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the risk factors of non-diagnostic results based on cause of error in liver tumor biopsy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-institution, retrospective study included 843 patients [445 men, 398 women; median age, 67 years] who underwent a total of 938 liver tumor biopsies between April 2018 and September 2022. An 18-G cutting biopsy needle with a 17-G introducer needle was used. Ultrasound was used as the first choice for image guidance, and computed tomography was alternatively or complementarily used only for tumors with poor ultrasound visibility. Non-diagnostic biopsies were divided into two groups depending on the cause of error, either technical or targeting error. Biopsies in which the biopsy needle did not hit the target tumor were classified as technical error. Biopsies in which insufficient tissue was obtained due to necrosis or degeneration despite the biopsy needle hitting the target tumor were classified as targeting error. This classification was based on pre-procedural enhanced-imaging, intro-procedural imaging, and pathological findings. Statistical analysis was performed using binary logistic regression.
resultsThe non-diagnostic rate was 4.6%. Twenty-six and seventeen biopsies were classified as technical and targeting errors, respectively. In the technical error group, tumor size ≤ 17 mm and computed tomography-assisted biopsy due to poor ultrasound visibility were identified as risk factors (p < 0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively), and the tumors with both factors had a significantly high risk of technical error compared to those without both factors (non-diagnostic rate: 17.2 vs 1.1%, p < 0.001). In the targeting error group, tumor size ≥ 42 mm was identified as a risk factor (p = 0.003).
conclusionTumor size ≤ 17 mm and computed tomography-assisted biopsy due to poor ultrasound visibility were risk factors for technical error, and tumor size ≥ 42 mm was a risk factor for targeting error in liver tumor biopsies.
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.