ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Preventing missed malignancies: impact of standardized radiology-pathology concordance assessment in CT-guided omental and mesenteric biopsies.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze outcomes of non-malignant concordant, discordant, and indeterminate results of CT-guided biopsies determined by standardized radiology-pathology concordance evaluation.
methodsIn this study, consecutive patients undergoing CT-guided omental and mesenteric biopsy between March 2005 and August 2021 were included. A standardized radiology-pathology concordance workflow was implemented in July 2016, with retrospective concordance assessment applied to earlier cases. Concordance between pathology results and imaging findings was assessed by procedural radiologists. DEFINITIONS: concordant, for malignant biopsy results or benign pathology where imaging findings agree; discordant, if pathology results are not congruent with imaging; and indeterminate, if imaging could be explained by pathology, but could also represent malignancy.
results222 biopsies were included. Pathology showed non-malignant results in 43/222 (19%), further classified by radiology-pathology concordance evaluation as discordant in 24/43 (56%), indeterminate in 8/43 (19%), and concordant in 11/43 (26%). One patient was lost to follow-up in the indeterminate category. The prevalence of malignancy on follow-up was higher in discordant (13/24, 54%) and indeterminate (2/7, 29%) groups vs. concordant cases (0/11, 0%), p < 0.001. There were 15/42 (36%) patients with final diagnosis of malignancy that would have been missed if radiology-pathology concordance evaluation had not been performed. Median time to diagnosis was shorter with repeat biopsy (18 days, IQR 9-34) and surgery (41 days, IQR 17-60) vs. imaging (185 days, IQR 107-239) and clinical follow-up (330 days, IQR 240-374), p < 0.001.
conclusionRadiology-pathology concordance evaluation in CT-guided omental and mesenteric biopsies showed high malignancy rates in initially non-malignant discordant (54%) and indeterminate (29%) cases. This practice prevented missed cancer diagnoses in 36% of patients with initial non-malignant results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40944875What 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.