Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided versus CT-Guided Percutaneous Liver Biopsy
Keywords:
Ultrasound-Guided, CT-Guided Percutaneous Liver Biopsy, ComplicationsAbstract
The procedure of percutaneous liver biopsy is still the standard of reference in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions, as well as diffuse parenchymal disease. Ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) are proven guidance techniques. This study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy, procedural features, and adverse event profile of US-guided and CT-guided percutaneous liver biopsy. A cross-sectional study of 101 consecutive patients (75 with focal lesions, 26 with diffuse hepatic disease) was performed, with 51 patients undergoing hepatic biopsy under US guidance and 50 patients undergoing hepatic biopsy under CT guidance. Baseline data, procedural factors, and 30-day outcomes were documented. The diagnostic performance was evaluated in relation to surgical pathology as the reference standard at 12-month clinical-radiological follow-up. Additionally, the technical success rate was 94.1% for US-guided procedures and 90.0% for CT-guided procedures in the first attempt. There were no significant differences between modalities for sample adequacy (98.0% vs. 92.0%) or overall diagnostic accuracy (93.3% vs. 89.8%). US-guided biopsy was found to be significantly faster (14.2 ± 5.1 minutes vs. 22.6 ± 7.4 minutes). The overall complication rate was similar (33.3% vs. 38.0%), and there were no deaths in either group. US- and CT-guided percutaneous liver biopsy offers similar and high diagnostic accuracy and a similar safety profile. Where available, ultrasound guidance provides much shorter procedure times and should be preferred.
References
[1] J. Neuberger, J. Patel, H. Caldwell, S. Davies, V. Hebditch, C. Hollywood, S. Hubscher, S. Karkhanis, W. Lester, N. Roslund, et al., “Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice from the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathology,” Gut, vol. 69, pp. 1382–1403, 2020.
[2] A. Facciorusso, S. F. Crinò, A. Fugazza, S. Carrara, M. Spadaccini, M. Colombo, D. Ramai, B. Mangiavillano, S. Chandan, P. Gkolfakis, et al., “Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: A network meta-analysis,” Endoscopy, vol. 56, pp. 31–40, 2024.
[3] H. B. Thomaides-Brears, N. Alkhouri, D. Allende, M. Harisinghani, N. Noureddin, N. S. Reau, M. French, C. Pantoja, S. Mouchti, and D. R. Cryer, “Incidence of complications from percutaneous biopsy in chronic liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 67, pp. 3366–3394, 2022.
[4] J. D. Lavian, L. M. Thornton, A. Zybulewski, E. Kim, S. F. Nowakowski, M. Ranade, R. S. Patel, R. A. Lookstein, A. Fischman, and V. Bishay, “Safety of percutaneous versus transjugular liver biopsy: A propensity score matched analysis,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 133, Art. no. 109399, 2020.
[5] D. W. Yao, M. Qin, H. X. Jiang, and S. Y. Qin, “Comparison of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for diagnosis of solid pancreatic mass lesions: A meta-analysis of prospective studies,” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 20, pp. 1–8, 2024.
[6] A. Facciorusso, B. P. Mohan, S. F. Crinò, A. Ofosu, D. Ramai, A. Lisotti, S. Chandan, and P. Fusaroli, “Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration versus standard fine-needle aspiration in pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis,” Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 15, pp. 821–828, 2021.
[7] C. F. Dietrich, C. P. Nolsøe, R. G. Barr, et al., “Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver—Update 2020: WFUMB in cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS,” Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 2579–2604, 2020.
[8] G. Francica, M. F. Meloni, I. de Sio, et al., “Biopsy of liver target lesions under contrast-enhanced ultrasound guidance—A multi-center study,” Ultraschall in der Medizin, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 448–453, 2018.
[9] Z. Sparchez, T. Mocan, C. Hagiu, et al., “Real-time contrast-enhanced-guided biopsy compared with conventional ultrasound-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of hepatic tumors on a background of advanced chronic liver disease: A prospective, randomized, clinical trial,” Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 2915–2924, 2019.
[10] Z. Spârchez, P. Radu, G. Kacso, M. Spârchez, T. Zaharia, and N. Al Hajjar, “Prospective comparison between real-time contrast-enhanced and conventional ultrasound guidance in percutaneous biopsies of liver tumors,” Medical Ultrasonography, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 456–463, 2015.
[11] J. Y. Huang, J. W. Li, Q. Lu, et al., “Diagnostic accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS for the characterization of liver nodules 20 mm or smaller in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma,” Radiology, vol. 294, no. 2, pp. 329–339, 2020.
[12] W. J. Heerink, G. H. de Bock, G. J. de Jonge, H. J. M. Groen, R. Vliegenthart, and M. Oudkerk, “Complication rates of CT-guided transthoracic lung biopsy: Meta-analysis,” European Radiology, vol. 27, pp. 138–148, 2017.
[13] H. K. Yang, P. N. Burns, H. J. Jang, et al., “Contrast-enhanced ultrasound approach to the diagnosis of focal liver lesions: The importance of washout,” Ultrasonography, vol. 38, pp. 289–301, 2019.
[14] S. Mishra, N. Bush, and S. S. Rana, “EUS-guided versus percutaneous image-guided liver biopsy: A battle for supremacy!” Journal of Digestive Endoscopy, vol. 12, pp. 120–124, 2021.
[15] G. Tian, Z. Ye, Q. Zhao, and T. Jiang, “Complication incidence of EUS-guided pancreas biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 thousand population from 78 cohort studies,” Asian Journal of Surgery, vol. 43, pp. 1049–1055, 2020.
[16] A. Maheux, Y. Purcell, S. Harguem, V. Vilgrain, and M. Ronot, “Targeted and non-targeted liver biopsies carry the same risk of complication,” European Radiology, vol. 29, pp. 5772–5783, 2019.
[17] H. Renier, L. Gérard, P. Lamborelle, and F. Cousin, “Efficacy of the tract embolization technique with gelatin sponge slurry to reduce pneumothorax and chest tube placement after percutaneous CT-guided lung biopsy,” Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, vol. 43, pp. 597–603, 2020.
[18] European Association for the Study of the Liver, “EASL clinical practice guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 69, pp. 182–236, 2018.
