Kimura Shintaro, Sone Miyuki, Sugawara Shunsuke, Itou Chihiro, Oshima Takumi, Ozawa Mizuki, Nakama Rakuhei, Murakami Sho, Matsui Yoshiyuki, Arai Yasuaki, Kusumoto Masahiko
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.
Cancer Medicine, The Jikei University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Jpn J Radiol. 2025 Apr;43(4):696-705. doi: 10.1007/s11604-024-01703-3. Epub 2024 Nov 14.
To evaluate the risk factors of non-diagnostic results based on cause of error in liver tumor biopsy.
This 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.
The 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).
Tumor 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.
基于肝肿瘤活检的误差原因评估非诊断性结果的风险因素。
这项单机构回顾性研究纳入了843例患者[445例男性,398例女性;中位年龄67岁],他们在2018年4月至2022年9月期间共接受了938次肝肿瘤活检。使用带有17G引导针的18G切割活检针。超声作为图像引导的首选,仅对超声显示不佳的肿瘤选择性地或作为补充使用计算机断层扫描。根据误差原因,非诊断性活检分为两组,即技术误差或靶向误差。活检针未命中目标肿瘤的活检被归类为技术误差。尽管活检针命中目标肿瘤,但由于坏死或变性导致获得的组织不足的活检被归类为靶向误差。这种分类基于术前增强成像、术中成像和病理结果。采用二元逻辑回归进行统计分析。
非诊断率为4.6%。分别有26例和17例活检被归类为技术误差和靶向误差。在技术误差组中,肿瘤大小≤17mm以及因超声显示不佳而进行计算机断层扫描辅助活检被确定为风险因素(分别为p<0.001和p=0.021),与不同时具备这两个因素的肿瘤相比,同时具备这两个因素的肿瘤出现技术误差的风险显著更高(非诊断率:17.2%对1.1%,p<0.001)。在靶向误差组中,肿瘤大小≥42mm被确定为风险因素(p=0.003)。
肿瘤大小≤17mm以及因超声显示不佳而进行计算机断层扫描辅助活检是肝肿瘤活检技术误差的风险因素,肿瘤大小≥42mm是靶向误差的风险因素。