La radiologia medica

, Volume 119, Issue 11, pp 852–860 | Cite as

Ct-guided bone biopsy in cancer patients with suspected bone metastases: retrospective review of 308 procedures

  • Lorenzo Monfardini
  • Lorenzo Preda
  • Gaetano Aurilio
  • Stefania Rizzo
  • Vincenzo Bagnardi
  • Giuseppe Renne
  • Sara Maccagnoni
  • Paolo Della Vigna
  • Disalvatore Davide
  • Massimo Bellomi
Diagnostic Imaging in Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

The authors assessed the adequacy and sensitivity of CT-guided bone biopsy in 308 procedures performed in 286 cancer patients with suspected bone metastases.

Materials and methods

An electronic search of our CT-guided bone biopsy database was retrospectively performed to evaluate the adequacy of samples and, in the event of negative samples, whether the patients had radiological progression at the site of biopsy (false negative). Adequacy and false-negative rate were compared with radiological features, biopsy location, specimen length and complications to assess any statistically relevant association with a multivariate logistic regression model.

Results

A total of 290/308 (94.1 %) samples were adequate. Forty-five patients had normal bone marrow and were followed-up, with evidence of progression at the site of biopsy in 10 cases (false-negative cases); overall sensitivity was 96.7 %. Specimen length was significantly correlated to the probability of an adequate biopsy (p = 0.035) and inversely correlated to the probability to obtain a false-negative result (p = 0.02). We encountered 11/308 (3.5 %) minor complications and no major complications.

Conclusion

CT-guided biopsy of bone lesions in cancer patients allows for a final diagnosis in 94 % of cases. A specimen longer than 1 cm may lead to a significant result in terms of adequacy and sensitivity. Negative biopsies with positive positron emission tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and specimen shorter than 1 cm should be repeated to avoid a false-negative result.

Keywords

CT-guided bone biopsy Cancer patients Bone metastases 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Lorenzo Monfardini, Lorenzo Preda, Gaetano Aurilio, Stefania Rizzo, Vincenzo Bagnardi, Giuseppe Renne, Sara Maccagnoni, Paolo Della Vigna, Disalvatore Davide, Massimo Bellomi declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rove KO, Crawford ED (2009) Metastatic cancer in solid tumors and clinical outcome: skeletal-related events. Oncology 23(14 Suppl 5):21–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gogna A, Peh WC, Munk PL (2008) Image-guided musculoskeletal biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 46:455–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Söderlund V (1996) Radiological diagnosis of skeletal metastases. Eur Radiol 6:587–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berning W, Freyschmidt J, Ostertag H (1996) Percutaneous bone biopsy, techniques and indications. Eur Radiol 6:875–881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simmons C, Miller N, Geddie W et al (2009) Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases? Ann Oncol 20:1499–1504PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aurilio G, Monfardini L, Rizzo S et al (2013) Discordant hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in bone metastases compared to primary breast cancer. Acta Oncol 52:1649–1656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF, Lewis CA (2003) Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S199–S202Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mantel N (1983) Chi square tests with one degree of freedom: extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. J Am Stat Assoc 58:690–700Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jaffe HL (1958) Introduction: problems of classification and diagnosis. Tumors and tumorous conditions of bone and joints. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 9–17Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kattapuram S, Hornicek FJ, Rosenberg AE et al (2002) Accuracy of CT-guided biopsies in 359 patients with musculoskeletal lesions. Skelet Radiol 31:349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ciray I, Aström G, Sundström C (1997) Assessment of suspected bone metastases. CT with and without clinical information compared to CT-guided bone biopsy. Acta Radiol 38:890–895PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jelinek JS, Murphey MD, Welker JA (2002) Diagnosis of primary bone tumors with image-guided percutaneous biopsy: experience with 110 tumors. Radiology 223:731–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hwang S, Lefkowitz RA, Landa J et al (2011) Percutaneous CT-guided bone biopsy: diagnosis of malignancy in lesions with initially indeterminate biopsy results and CT features associated with diagnostic or indeterminate results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1417–1425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Genant JW, Vandevenne JE, Bergman AG (2002) Interventional musculoskeletal procedures performed by using MR imaging guidance with a vertically open MR unit: assessment of techniques and applicability. Radiology 223:127–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roberts CC, Morrison WB, Leslie KO et al (2005) Assessment of bone biopsy needles for sample size, specimen quality and ease of use. Skelet Radiol 34:329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    James AW, Robert MH, James J et al (2000) The percutaneous needle biopsy is safe and recommended in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal masses. Cancer 89:2677–2686CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorenzo Monfardini
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Preda
    • 1
  • Gaetano Aurilio
    • 2
  • Stefania Rizzo
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Bagnardi
    • 3
  • Giuseppe Renne
    • 4
  • Sara Maccagnoni
    • 5
  • Paolo Della Vigna
    • 1
  • Disalvatore Davide
    • 3
  • Massimo Bellomi
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Radiology MilanEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  2. 2.Unit of Medical Care MilanEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  3. 3.Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics MilanEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  4. 4.Laboratory Medicine Milan, Division of PathologyEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  5. 5.School of Medicine MilanUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations