Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1566–1570 | Cite as

Percutaneous omental biopsy: efficacy and complications

  • Derek K. Hill
  • Grant D. Schmit
  • Michael R. Moynagh
  • A. Nicholas Kurup
  • John J. Schmitz
  • Thomas D. Atwell
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the efficacy and safety of percutaneous omental biopsy.

Methods

Retrospective review was performed of all 181 percutaneous omental biopsies performed at a single institution between 9/18/2002 and 2/12/2016. Mean patient age was 67 (±14) years, and 114 (63%) patients were female. Biopsy results were compared to subsequent surgical pathology and paracentesis cytology, when available, and cases were further evaluated based on the imaging appearance of the omental abnormality. Complications were classified using Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) consensus guidelines.

Results

Of the 181 cases, histopathology was positive for malignancy in 166 (92%) patients and showed benign inflammation/fibrosis in 15 (8%) patients. Seventy-three (40%) patients underwent subsequent surgery, and omental malignancy was diagnosed in every case. Percutaneous omental biopsy and surgical pathology results were concordant in all but 1 case (diagnostic accuracy of 99%). In contrast, the accuracy of paracentesis cytology in surgically confirmed malignant cases was only 76% (p = 0.004). Biopsy was positive for malignancy in 95% of patients with omental caking, 92% with omental nodularity, 80% with a single omental nodule, and 20% with omental thickening (p = <0.001). In 118 (65%) patients, a previously unknown (new or additional) malignancy was diagnosed. No clinically significant complications occurred.

Conclusions

Percutaneous biopsy is an effective and safe method to evaluate omental abnormalities. Omental biopsy is more sensitive than paracentesis cytology for determining malignancy. Omental malignancy is more likely as the abnormality advances through the spectrum of imaging appearances from omental thickening to omental caking.

Keywords

Omentum Biopsy Image-guided 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Yoo E, Kim JH, Kim MJ, et al. (2007) Greater and lesser omentum: normal anatomy and pathologic processes. RadioGraphics 27:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Souza FF, Mortelé KJ, Cibas ES, Erturk SM, Silverman SG (2009) Predictive value of percutaneous imaging-guided biopsy of peritoneal and omental masses: results in 111 patients. Am J Roentgenol 192(1):131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clement PB, Fletcher CDM (1995) Tumors of the peritoneum: diagnostic histopathology of tumors. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, pp 611–633Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper C, Jeffrey RB, Silverman PM, Federle MP, Chun GH (1986) Computed tomography of omental pathology. J Comput Assist Tomogr 10:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rioux M, Michaud C (1995) Sonographic detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis: a prospective study of 37 cases. Abdom Imaging 20:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levitt RG, Sagel SS, Stanley RJ (1978) Detection of neoplastic involvement of the mesentery and omentum by computed tomography. Am J Roentgenol 131:835–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Govindarajan P, Keshava SN (2010) Ultrasound-guided omental biopsy: review of 173 patients. Indian J Radiol Imaging 20(4):307–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Layfield LJ, Gopez EV (2003) Percutaneous image-guided fine-needle aspiration of peritoneal lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 28:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sistrom CL, Abbit P, Feldman PS (1992) Ultrasound guidance for biopsy of omental abnormalities. J Clin Ultrasound 20:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gottlieb RH, Tan R, Widjaja J, et al. (1998) Extravisceral masses in the peritoneal cavity: sonographically guided biopsies in 52 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:697–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spencer JA, Swift SE, Wilkinson N, et al. (2001) Peritoneal carcinomatosis: image-guided peritoneal core biopsy for tumor type and patient care. Radiology 22:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khurana KK, Stanley MW, Powers CN, Pitman MB (1998) Aspiration cytology of malignant neoplasms associated with granulomas and granuloma-like features: diagnostic dilemmas. Cancer 84:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewart CJR, Coldwey J, Stewart IS (2002) Comparison of fine needle aspiration cytology and needle core biopsy in the diagnosis of radiologically detected abdominal lesions. J Clin Pathol 55:93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patel IJ, Davidson JC, Nikolic B, et al. (2013) Addendum of newer anticoagulants to the SIR Consensus Guideline; Standards of Practice Committee, with Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) Endorsement. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:641–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Omary RA, Bettmann MA, Cardella JF, et al. (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:293–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karoo ROS, Lloyd TDR, Garcea G, Redway HD, Robertson GSR (2003) How valuable is ascitic cytology in the detection and management of malignancy? Postgrad Med J 79:292–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek K. Hill
    • 1
  • Grant D. Schmit
    • 1
  • Michael R. Moynagh
    • 1
  • A. Nicholas Kurup
    • 1
  • John J. Schmitz
    • 1
  • Thomas D. Atwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMayo Clinic School of MedicineRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations