ArticleEuropean radiology2026
CT-guided core needle biopsy of focal pulmonary lesions with coexisting interstitial lung abnormalities: a case-control study.
Article in European radiology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the safety and diagnostic performance of CT-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) of focal pulmonary lesions with coexisting interstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective 1:1 matched case-control study included patients with ILAs and controls who underwent CT-guided CNB of a focal pulmonary lesion from February 2010 to December 2023. Complications, nondiagnostic specimens, and CNB diagnostic performance for malignancy were compared. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of complications and nondiagnostic specimens. Resected cases were reviewed for histopathological changes in the nonneoplastic lung.
resultsSeventy-three patients with ILAs and matched controls were included (both groups: median age, 73.0 years; 13 women). No significant difference was found in complications (overall: 21/73 [29%] vs 24/73 [33%], p = 0.72; major: 2/73 [3%] vs 3/73 [4%], p = 1.00; minor: 19/73 [26%] vs 21/73 [29%], p = 0.85), nondiagnostic specimens (12/73 [16%] vs 9/73 [12%], p = 0.20), or diagnostic performance (accuracy: 89% [65/73] vs 96% [70/73], p = 0.11; sensitivity: 88% [61/69] vs 95% [62/65], p = 0.13; specificity: 100% [4/4] vs 100% [8/8], p = 1.00). Needle traversal of ILAs (OR, 7.04; 95% CI: 2.07-26.28; p = 0.008) and multiple pleural passes (OR, 8.06; 95% CI: 1.26-70.46; p = 0.03) were associated with complications. Nonneoplastic lung in ILAs revealed more complex histology and increased fibrotic features than controls.
conclusionCT-guided CNB of focal pulmonary lesions with coexisting ILAs was as safe and accurate as in patients without ILAs. However, traversing ILAs and multiple pleural passes increased complication risk. KEY POINTS: Question Whether CT-guided CNB of focal pulmonary lesions with coexisting ILAs is as safe and accurate as in those without ILAs. Findings CNB in patients with ILAs showed similar safety and diagnostic performance to controls; however, complications were more frequent when ILAs were traversed or multiple pleural passes were performed. Clinical relevance CNB is a safe and effective diagnostic tool in patients with ILAs. Avoiding ILA traversal and multiple pleural passes may help minimize the risk of complications.
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.