Clara Prud'homme1, Fréderic Deschamps2, Adrien Allorant3, Christophe Massard4, Antoine Hollebecque5, Steve Yevich6, Maud Ngo-Camus7, Guillaume Gravel8, Claudio Nicotra9, Stefan Michiels10, Jean-Yves Scoazec11, Ludovic Lacroix12, Eric Solary13, Jean-Charles Soria14, Thierry De Baere15, Lambros Tselikas16. 1. Department of Interventional Radiology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: clara.prudhomme20@yahoo.fr. 2. Department of Interventional Radiology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: frederic.deschamps@gustaveroussy.fr. 3. Biostatistics and Epidemiology Unit, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay University, CESP, INSERM, Villejuif, F-94805, France. Electronic address: Adrien.allorant@gustaveroussy.fr. 4. Drug Development Department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: Christophe.massard@gustaveroussy.fr. 5. Drug Development Department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: Antoine.hollebecque@gustaveroussy.fr. 6. Department of Interventional Radiology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: syevich@mdanderson.org. 7. Drug Development Department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: Maud.Ngocamus@gustaveroussy.fr. 8. Department of Interventional Radiology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: Guillaume.gravel@gustaveroussy.fr. 9. Drug Development Department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. Electronic address: claudio.nicotra@gustaveroussy.fr. 10. Biostatistics and Epidemiology Unit, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay University, CESP, INSERM, Villejuif, F-94805, France. Electronic address: stefan.michiels@gustaveroussy.fr. 11. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Faculté de Médecine, Kremlin-Bicêtre, Université Paris Sud, France; Laboratory of Translational Research and Biological Resource Center - AMMICA, INSERM US23/CNRS UMS3655, France. Electronic address: jean-yves.scoazec@gustaveroussy.fr. 12. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Laboratory of Translational Research and Biological Resource Center - AMMICA, INSERM US23/CNRS UMS3655, France. Electronic address: Ludovic.lacroix@gustaveroussy.fr. 13. Drug Development Department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Faculté de Médecine, Kremlin-Bicêtre, Université Paris Sud, France. Electronic address: Eric.solary@gustaveroussy.fr. 14. Drug Development Department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Faculté de Médecine, Kremlin-Bicêtre, Université Paris Sud, France. Electronic address: jean-charles.soria@gustaveroussy.fr. 15. Department of Interventional Radiology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Faculté de Médecine, Kremlin-Bicêtre, Université Paris Sud, France. Electronic address: thierry.debaere@gustaveroussy.fr. 16. Department of Interventional Radiology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Faculté de Médecine, Kremlin-Bicêtre, Université Paris Sud, France; Laboratory of Translational Research in Immunology - LRTI, INSERM U1015, Gustave Roussy, France. Electronic address: Lambros.tselikas@gustaveroussy.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy, complications and preprocedural risk factors for percutaneous image-guided core needle biopsy of malignant tumours for genomic tumour analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Procedural data for core biopsies performed at a single centre for the MOSCATO-01 clinical trial were prospectively recorded between December 2011 and March 2016. Data assessed included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, procedural outcomes and complications. RESULTS: A total of 877 biopsies were performed under computed tomography (38.4%) or ultrasound guidance (61.6%) for tumours in the liver (n = 363), lungs (n = 229), lymph nodes (n = 138), bones (n = 15) and other miscellaneous sites (n = 124). Each biopsy harvested a mean 4.4 samples [1-15], with adequate tumour yield for genomic analysis in 95.3% of cases. Procedural complications occurred in 89 cases (10.1%), with minor grade I complications in 59 (66.3%); grade II in 16 (18%) and grade III in 14 (15.7%). No grade IV complications and no procedure-related death occurred. The most common complications were pneumothorax (51/89, 57.3%), haemorrhage (24/89, 27%) and pain (8/89, 8.9%). Predictive factors for complications by univariate analysis included biopsied organ (lung vs other), sample number, prone position, lesion size, lesion depth and biopsy approach. By multivariate analysis, only pulmonary biopsy was a significant risk factor (odds ratio = 27.23 [4.93-242.76], p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous image-guided core needle biopsy in cancer patients provides an effective method to obtain molecular screening samples, with an overall low complication rate. Lung mass biopsies present a higher risk of complication, although complications are manageable by minimally invasive techniques without prolonged sequelae.
PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy, complications and preprocedural risk factors for percutaneous image-guided core needle biopsy of malignant tumours for genomic tumour analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Procedural data for core biopsies performed at a single centre for the MOSCATO-01 clinical trial were prospectively recorded between December 2011 and March 2016. Data assessed included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, procedural outcomes and complications. RESULTS: A total of 877 biopsies were performed under computed tomography (38.4%) or ultrasound guidance (61.6%) for tumours in the liver (n = 363), lungs (n = 229), lymph nodes (n = 138), bones (n = 15) and other miscellaneous sites (n = 124). Each biopsy harvested a mean 4.4 samples [1-15], with adequate tumour yield for genomic analysis in 95.3% of cases. Procedural complications occurred in 89 cases (10.1%), with minor grade I complications in 59 (66.3%); grade II in 16 (18%) and grade III in 14 (15.7%). No grade IV complications and no procedure-related death occurred. The most common complications were pneumothorax (51/89, 57.3%), haemorrhage (24/89, 27%) and pain (8/89, 8.9%). Predictive factors for complications by univariate analysis included biopsied organ (lung vs other), sample number, prone position, lesion size, lesion depth and biopsy approach. By multivariate analysis, only pulmonary biopsy was a significant risk factor (odds ratio = 27.23 [4.93-242.76], p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous image-guided core needle biopsy in cancerpatients provides an effective method to obtain molecular screening samples, with an overall low complication rate. Lung mass biopsies present a higher risk of complication, although complications are manageable by minimally invasive techniques without prolonged sequelae.
Authors: Ahmed Elsakka; Elena N Petre; Fourat Ridouani; Mario Ghosn; Matthew J Bott; Bryan C Husta; Maria E Arcila; Erica Alexander; Stephen B Solomon; Etay Ziv Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep Date: 2022-05-18
Authors: Marco Calandri; Giulia Siravegna; Andrea Veltri; Bruno C Odisio; Steven M Yevich; Giuseppe Stranieri; Carlo Gazzera; Scott Kopetz; Paolo Fonio; Sanjay Gupta; Alberto Bardelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ömer Faruk Ateş; Onur Taydaş; Ahmet Burak Kara; Mehmet Göktepeli; Mustafa Özdemir Journal: Turk J Med Sci Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 0.973