David C Howlett1, Karl J Drinkwater, David Lawrence, Susan Barter, Tony Nicholson.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess procedural aspects, diagnostic adequacy, and accuracy of liver biopsy across the United Kingdom.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval for this type of study is not required in the United Kingdom. All radiology departments with an approved leader for departmental audit registered with the Royal College of Radiologists were invited to participate in this retrospective audit. The first 50 consecutive patients who underwent image-guided or image-assisted liver biopsy in 2008 were included. Audit standards relating to procedural aspects of biopsy, sample adequacy, and accuracy were prepared with reference to published data. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and accuracy were calculated. Organizational and clinical variables were investigated for their association with diagnostic specimen quality.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven (41%) of 210 departments supplied data for this study, with a total of 3496 cases (1225 focal disease, 2262 nonfocal disease, nine unspecified). Ultrasonographic (US) guidance was the technique most commonly used for focal lesions and for cases of nonfocal disease (2808 [96.38%] of 3490 cases). The audit standard for sample adequacy (98%) was narrowly missed in practice (3401 [97.96%] of 3472 cases); however, the standard for diagnostic accuracy (90%) was met (3187 [98.55%] of 3234 cases). Poor compliance with postbiopsy documentation was observed.
CONCLUSION: The majority of liver biopsies in this audit were performed by radiologists using image guidance or assistance, usually in the form of US. Biopsies were performed with a high degree of accuracy. Some postprocedural aspects of biopsy failed to meet required standards and would merit reaudit after practice changes. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12111562/-/DC1. © RSNA 2012.
PURPOSE: To assess procedural aspects, diagnostic adequacy, and accuracy of liver biopsy across the United Kingdom.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval for this type of study is not required in the United Kingdom. All radiology departments with an approved leader for departmental audit registered with the Royal College of Radiologists were invited to participate in this retrospective audit. The first 50 consecutive patients who underwent image-guided or image-assisted liver biopsy in 2008 were included. Audit standards relating to procedural aspects of biopsy, sample adequacy, and accuracy were prepared with reference to published data. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and accuracy were calculated. Organizational and clinical variables were investigated for their association with diagnostic specimen quality.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven (41%) of 210 departments supplied data for this study, with a total of 3496 cases (1225 focal disease, 2262 nonfocal disease, nine unspecified). Ultrasonographic (US) guidance was the technique most commonly used for focal lesions and for cases of nonfocal disease (2808 [96.38%] of 3490 cases). The audit standard for sample adequacy (98%) was narrowly missed in practice (3401 [97.96%] of 3472 cases); however, the standard for diagnostic accuracy (90%) was met (3187 [98.55%] of 3234 cases). Poor compliance with postbiopsy documentation was observed.
CONCLUSION: The majority of liver biopsies in this audit were performed by radiologists using image guidance or assistance, usually in the form of US. Biopsies were performed with a high degree of accuracy. Some postprocedural aspects of biopsy failed to meet required standards and would merit reaudit after practice changes. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12111562/-/DC1. © RSNA 2012.
Entities:
Mesh：
Year: 2012
PMID： 23175545 DOI： 10.1148/radiol.12111562
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiology ISSN： 0033-8419 Impact factor: 11.105