Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performing MR-guided biopsies in clinical routine: factors that influence accuracy and procedure time

  • Interventional
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess the accuracy, the duration and factors that influence the duration of MRI-guided liver or soft-tissue biopsies.

Methods

Nineteen liver biopsies and 19 soft-tissue biopsies performed using 1.5T-MRI guidance were retrospectively analysed. Diagnostic performance and complications were assessed. Intervention time was subdivided into preparation period, puncture period and control period. Correlation between procedure time and target size, skin-to-target-distance, used sequences and interventionalists’ experience were analysed.

Results

Overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 0.86, 1.0 and 0.92, respectively. Two minor complications occurred. Overall median procedure time was 103.5 min. Liver biopsies lasted longer than soft-tissue biopsies (mean[soft-tissue]: 73.0 min, mean[liver]: 134.1 min, P < 0.001). The most time consuming part was the preparation period in both, soft-tissue and liver biopsies corresponding to 59.6% and 47.4% of the total intervention time, respectively. Total procedure time in liver biopsies (P = 0.027) and puncture period in liver and soft-tissue biopsies (P [liver] = 0.048, P [soft-tissue] = 0.005) was significantly prolonged for longer skin-to-target-distances. Lower numbers of image acquisitions (P [liver] = 0.0007, P [soft-tissue] = 0.0012) and interventionalists’ experience reduces the procedure duration significantly (P < 0.05), besides all false–negative results appeared during the first five biopsies of each individual radiologist.

Conclusion

The interventionalists’ experience, skin-to-target-distances and number of image acquisition influence the procedure time significantly.

Key Points

•Appropriate training and supervision is essential for inexperienced interventionalists.

•Two perpendicular image orientations should confirm the correct biopsy needle position.

•Communication between interventionalist and technician is essential for a fluent biopsy procedure.

•To shorten intervention time appropriate previous imaging is essential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Koenig CW, Duda SH, Truebenbach J, Schott UG, Maurer F, Claussen CD, Pereira PL (2001) MR-guided biopsy of musculoskeletal lesions in a low-field system. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:761–768

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ojala R, Sequeiros RB, Klemola R, Vahala E, Jyrkinen L, Tervonen O (2002) MR-guided bone biopsy: preliminary report of a new guiding method. J Magn Reson Imaging 15:82–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carrino JA, Khurana B, Ready JE, Silverman SG, Winalski CS (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided percutaneous biopsy of musculoskeletal lesions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2179–2187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Adams SC, Potter BK, Pitcher DJ, Temple HT (2010) Office-based core needle biopsy of bone and soft tissue malignancies: an accurate alternative to open biopsy with infrequent complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2774–2780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. König CW, Trübenbach J, Fritz J, Lauer UM, Claussen CD, Pereira PL (2004) Contrast enhanced MR-guided biopsy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 29:71–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kariniemi J, Blanco Sequeiros R, Ojala R, Tervonen O (2005) MRI-guided abdominal biopsy in a 0.23-T open-configuration MRI system. Eur Radiol 15:1256–1262

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stattaus J, Kuehl H, Ladd S, Schroeder T, Antoch G, Baba HA, Barkhausen J, Forsting M (2007) CT-guided biopsy of small liver lesions: visibility, artifacts, and corresponding diagnostic accuracy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30:928–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moche M, Trampel R, Kahn T, Busse H (2008) Navigation concepts for MR image-guided interventions. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:276–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zangos S, Eichler K, Wetter A, Lehnert T, Hammerstingl R, Diebold T, Reichel P, Herzog C, Hansmann ML, Mack MG, Vogl TJ (2006) MR-guided biopsies of lesions in the retroperitoneal space: technique and results. Eur Radiol 16:307–312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Das CJ, Goenka AH, Srivastava DN (2010) MR-guided abdominal biopsy using a 1.5-Tesla closed system: a feasibility study. Abdom Imaging 35:218–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fischbach F, Bunke J, Thormann M, Gaffke G, Jungnickel K, Smink J, Ricke J (2011) MR-guided freehand biopsy of liver lesions with fast continuous imaging using a 1.0-T open MRI scanner: experience in 50 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34:188–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewin JS, Nour SG, Duerk JL (2000) Magnetic resonance image-guided biopsy and aspiration. Top Magn Reson Imag 11:173–183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Weiss CR, Nour SG, Lewin JS (2008) MR-guided biopsy: a review of current techniques and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:311–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, Lu HT, Schueler BA, Geisinger M, Berenstein A, Albert R, Georgia JD, Noonan PT, Cardella JF, St George J, Russell EJ, Malisch TW, Vogelzang RL, Miller GL 3rd, Anderson J (2003) RAD-IR study. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:711–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, Lu HT, Berenstein A, Albert R, Schueler BA, Georgia JD, Noonan PT, Russell EJ, Malisch TW, Vogelzang RL, Geisinger M, Cardella JF, George JS, Miller GL 3rd, Anderson J (2003) Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part II: skin dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:977–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stattaus J, Maderwald S, Forsting M, Barkhausen J, Ladd ME (2008) MR-guided core biopsy with MR fluoroscopy using a short, wide-bore 1.5-Tesla scanner: feasibility and initial results. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:1181–1187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kühn JP, Langner S, Hegenscheid K, Evert M, Kickhefel A, Hosten N, Puls R (2010) Magnetic resonance-guided upper abdominal biopsies in a high-field wide-bore 3-T MRI system: feasibility, handling, and needle artefacts. Eur Radiol 20:2414–2421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stattaus J, Maderwald S, Baba HA, Gerken G, Barkhausen J, Forsting M, Ladd ME (2008) MR-guided liver biopsy within a short, wide-bore 1.5 Tesla MR system. Eur Radiol 18:2865–2873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Noroozian M, Gombos EC, Chikarmane S, Georgian-Smith D, Raza S, Denison CM, Frost EP, Birdwell RL (2010) Factors that impact the duration of MRI-guided core needle biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:W150–W157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. American College of Radiology (2008) ACR–SIR Practice Guideline for the Performance of mage-Guided Percutaneous Needle Biopsy (PNB) in Adults. American College of Radiology, Reston: Available via http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/iv/pnb.aspx. Accessed 30 Apr 2011

  21. Gianfelice D, Lepanto L, Perreault P, Chartrand-Lefebvre C, Milette PC (2000) Value of CT fluoroscopy for percutaneous biopsy procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:879–884

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Güttler FV, Rump J, Seebauer C, Teichgräber U (2011) A wireless communication system for interventional MRI. Rofo 183:68–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zangos S, Müller C, Mayer F, Naguib NN, Nour-Eldin NE, Hansmann ML, Herzog C, Hammerstingl RM, Thalhammer A, Mack M, Vogl TJ, Eichler K (2009) Retrospective 5-year analysis of MR-guided biopsies in a low-field MR system. Rofo 181:658–663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Rüdiger Hoffmann, Christoph Thomas, Hansjörg Rempp, Diethard Schmidt, Claus D. Claussen & Stephan Clasen

  2. Department of Radiology, Minimally Invasive Therapies and Nuclearmedicine, SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn GmbH, Am Gesundbrunnen 20-26, 74078, Heilbronn, Germany

    Philippe L. Pereira

Authors
  1. Rüdiger Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hansjörg Rempp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diethard Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Philippe L. Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Claus D. Claussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stephan Clasen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Thomas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoffmann, R., Thomas, C., Rempp, H. et al. Performing MR-guided biopsies in clinical routine: factors that influence accuracy and procedure time. Eur Radiol 22, 663–671 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2297-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2297-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation