Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40931774›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026

Factors influencing diagnostic yield and complication risk in computed tomography fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsies: a 10-year single-center study.

Nabeel Mansour, Hannah Gildein, Frederik F Strobl, Osman Öcal, Tobias Geith, Daniel Puhr-Westerheide, Matthias Stechele, Sinan Deniz, Muzaffer R Ümütlü, Nicola Fink and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors.

Nabeel MansourLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3467-1916
Hannah GildeinLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0009-0004-6420-988X
Frederik F StroblDIE RADIOLOGIE, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5685-0587
Osman ÖcalLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5234-1921
Tobias GeithUniversity Hospital Klinikum Rechts Der Isar TUM, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Department of Interventional Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5441-0732
Daniel Puhr-WesterheideLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3669-5572
Matthias StecheleLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1810-3529
Sinan DenizLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9887-2864
Muzaffer R ÜmütlüLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8168-1500
Nicola FinkLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3089-9606
Dirk MehrensLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5114-8935
Moritz WildgruberLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7228-6963
Max SeidenstickerLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2481-5410
Maximilian F ReiserLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-4903-7694
Jens RickeLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8762-8594
Philipp M PaprottkaUniversity Hospital Klinikum Rechts Der Isar TUM, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Department of Interventional Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5047-4659
Matthias P FabritiusLMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Department of Radiology, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3471-4701

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeComputed tomography fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided biopsy is an established technique for sampling pulmonary lesions, particularly with the growing prevalence of lung nodule screening programs. This study investigated procedural and lesion-related factors affecting success and complication rates in routine CTF-guided lung core-needle biopsies at a tertiary center.

methodsConsecutive patients undergoing percutaneous CTF-guided lung biopsies over a 10-year period (2007-2016) were retrospectively analyzed. Data collected included lesion characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes, including technical and clinical success and complications. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify predictors of complications and biopsy failure.

resultsAmong 641 patients (43% female; median age 67 years) with a median lesion size of 3.1 cm, technical and clinical success rates were 99% and 93%, respectively. Clinical success was associated with multiple pulmonary lesions and longer specimen length, with multivariable analysis identifying multiple lesions as the sole independent predictor [odds ratio (OR): 2.4]. Major complications (n = 70, 11%), primarily pneumothorax (n = 62, 90%), were associated with a longer intrapulmonary needle tract, greater pleura-to-lesion distance, smaller lesion size, fissure crossing, and the presence of emphysema or subpleural air cysts. Multivariable analysis identified smaller lesion size (OR: 0.8) and greater pleura-to-lesion distance (OR: 1.5) as independent risk factors.

conclusionCTF-guided lung biopsy is a safe and effective method for tissue sampling with high diagnostic success rates. Although multiple samples do not increase the risk of major complications, factors such as small lesion size, greater pleura-to-lesion distance, and emphysema-related changes are associated with a higher incidence of pneumothorax, emphasizing the need for risk-aware procedural planning. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: CTF-guided lung biopsy demonstrates high diagnostic performance in routine practice. Understanding how specific anatomical features influence complication risk can guide radiologists in selecting safer biopsy approaches, especially in patients undergoing evaluation through lung cancer screening programs. Integrating these risk factors into procedural planning supports more informed, patient-centered decision-making in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyLungLung NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleFemaleFluoroscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPneumothoraxRadiography, InterventionalRetrospective StudiesBiopsycomputed tomographyfluoroscopyinterventionallung

Identifiers

PMID40931774
PMCPMC12766336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.