SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 52

Factors Predicting Non-diagnostic Results in Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Pancreatic Biopsy

Ultrason Eşliğinde Perkütan Pankreas Biyopsisinde Tanısal Olmayan Sonuçları Öngören Faktörler

Erdi Tangobay(Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Radiology, Ankara, Türkiye.)0000-0003-1820-6413
Saffet Öztürk(Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Radiology, Ankara, Türkiye.)0000-0002-5221-4831
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-06
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall diagnostic adequacy was 78.4% (98/125).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic adequacy and safety profile of ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic biopsy and to determine predictors of non-diagnostic results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this retrospective single-center study, consecutive patients who underwent ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic biopsy between November 2022 and March 2026 were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall diagnostic adequacy was 78.4% (98/125).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Pankreas neoplazmları · Görüntüleme kılavuzluğunda biyopsi · İnce iğne aspirasyon biyopsisi

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic adequacy and safety profile of ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic biopsy and to determine predictors of non-diagnostic results. In this retrospective single-center study, consecutive patients who underwent ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic biopsy between November 2022 and March 2026 were included. Lesion characteristics, biopsy technique, diagnostic adequacy, and complications were evaluated. Diagnostic adequacy was defined as obtaining sufficient tissue for pathological evaluation. Diagnostic and non-diagnostic biopsies were grouped, and lesion-related and procedural parameters were compared between the groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of non-diagnostic biopsy. A total of 125 patients (mean age, 66.8 ± 10.4 years; 55.2% male) were included in the study. The overall diagnostic adequacy was 78.4% (98/125). Among diagnostic biopsies, 79 were reported as malignant, 16 as suspicious for malignancy, and 3 as benign. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy was performed in 97 patients (77.6%), whereas core needle biopsy was performed in 28 patients (22.4%). In multivariable analysis, smaller lesion size (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93–0.99; p=0.014) and the presence of a cystic component (OR: 3.42, 95% CI: 1.21–9.66; p=0.020) were identified as independent risk factors for non-diagnostic biopsy. No major complications were observed, while minor complications, including abdominal pain or hemorrhage not requiring additional treatment, occurred in 5.6% of patients. In conclusion, ultrasound-guided percutaneous pancreatic biopsy is a safe and effective method with acceptable diagnostic adequacy. Lesion size and the presence of a cystic component are important factors affecting diagnostic adequacy and should be considered during procedural planning.

Özet

Bu çalışmada ultrason eşliğinde perkütan pankreas biyopsisinin tanısal başarısını ve güvenlik profilini değerlendirmek ve tanısal olmayan örneklemeyi öngören faktörleri belirlemek amaçlandı. Kasım 2022 ile Mart 2026 tarihleri arasında kliniğimizde ultrason eşliğinde perkütan pankreas biyopsisi uygulanan hastalar retrospektif olarak taranarak çalışmaya dahil edildi. Lezyon özellikleri, biyopsi tekniği, tanısal yeterlilik ve komplikasyonlar değerlendirildi. Tanısal yeterlilik, patolojik değerlendirme için yeterli doku elde edilmesi olarak tanımlandı. Tanısal olan ve tanısal olmayan biyopsiler gruplanarak lezyona ait ve prosedürel parametreler gruplar arası karşılaştırıldı. Tanısal olmayan biyopsi bağımsız prediktörlerini belirlemek amacıyla çok değişkenli lojistik regresyon analizi yapıldı. Toplam 125 hasta (ortalama yaş 66,8 ± 10,4 yıl; %55,2 erkek) çalışmaya dahil edildi. Genel tanısal başarı oranı %78,4 (98/125) olarak bulundu. Tanısal biyopsilerin 79’u malign, 16’sı malignite açısından şüpheli ve 3’ü benign olarak raporlandı. İnce iğne aspirasyon biyopsisi 97 hastada (%77,6), kor biyopsi ise 28 hastada (%22,4) uygulandı. Multivaryant analizde küçük lezyon boyutu (OR: 0,96, %95 GA: 0,93–0,99; p=0,014) ve kistik komponent varlığı (OR: 3,42, %95 GA: 1,21–9,66; p=0,020) tanısal olmayan biyopsi için bağımsız risk faktörü olduğu bulundu. Majör komplikasyon izlenmezken, hastaların %5,6’sında karın ağrısı veya ek tedavi gerektirmeyen hemoraji gibi minör komplikasyonlar görüldü.Sonuç olarak ultrason eşliğinde perkütan pankreas biyopsisi kabul edilebilir tanısal performansa sahip güvenli ve etkili bir yöntemdir. Lezyon boyutu ve kistik komponent varlığı tanısal başarıyı etkileyen önemli faktörler olup işlem planlamasında dikkate alınmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tangobay, E., Öztürk, S., *, E. T. (2026). Factors Predicting Non-diagnostic Results in Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Pancreatic Biopsy. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 52. https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.1955967

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Tian L, Tang AL, Zhang L, Liu XW, Li JB, Wang F, et al. Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study. Surg Endosc. 2018 Aug 5;32(8):3533–9.
  2. Bao R, Li W, Luo Y, Zhang M. Diagnostic Value of Percutaneous Ultrasound‐Guided Core Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Lesions: A Retrospective Study of 796 Cases. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound. 2026 Jan 12.
  3. D’Onofrio M, De Robertis R, Barbi E, Martone E, Manfrin E, Gobbo S, et al. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic neoplasms: 10-year experience with more than 2,000 cases and a review of the literature. Eur Radiol. 2016 Jun 16;26(6):1801–7.
  4. Huang Y, Shi J, Chen YY, Li K. Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Core Needle Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Disease. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018 Jun;44(6):1145–54.
  5. Caymaz I, Afandiyeva N. Diagnostic Evaluation of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023 Nov 18;46(11):1596–602.
  6. Patel IJ, Rahim S, Davidson JC, Hanks SE, Tam AL, Walker TG, et al. Society of Interventional Radiology Consensus Guidelines for the Periprocedural Management of Thrombotic and Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Image-Guided Interventions—Part II: Recommendations. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2019 Aug;30(8):1168-1184.e1.
  7. Veltri A, Bargellini I, Giorgi L, Almeida PAMS, Akhan O. CIRSE Guidelines on Percutaneous Needle Biopsy (PNB). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017 Oct 18;40(10):1501–13.
  8. Hadi M, Walker C, Desborough M, Basile A, Tsetis D, Hunt B, et al. CIRSE Standards of Practice on Peri-operative Predictors of Non-diagnostic Pancreatic Biopsy Anticoagulation Management During Interventional Radiology Procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021 Apr 20;44(4):523–36.
  9. Filippiadis D, Pereira PL, Hausegger KA, Ryan AG, Binkert CA. CIRSE Standards of Practice for the Classification ofComplications: The Modified CIRSE Classification System.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2025 Oct 16.
  10. Stella SF, Van Borsel M, Markose G, Nair SB. Image-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy for Pancreatic Lesions: 10-Year Experience in a Tertiary Cancer Center. Canadian Associationof Radiologists Journal. 2019 May 1;70(2):199–203.
  11. Zamboni GA, D’Onofrio M, Idili A, Malagò R, Iozzia R,Manfrin E, et al. Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Fine-Needle Aspiration of 545 Focal Pancreatic Lesions. American Journalof Roentgenology. 2009 Dec;193(6):1691–5.
  12. Chai WL, Kuang XF, Yu L, Cheng C, Jin XY, Zhao QY, et al. Percutaneous ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: An analysis of 1074 lesions.Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International. 2023Jun;22(3):302–9.
  13. Lim LG, Lakhtakia S, Ang TL, Vu CKF, Dy F, Chong VH, etal. Factors Determining Diagnostic Yield of EndoscopicUltrasound Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for PancreaticCystic Lesions: A Multicentre Asian Study. Dig Dis Sci. 2013Jun 13;58(6):1751–7.
  14. Sperti C, Pasquali C, Di Prima F, Rugge M, Petrin P,Costantino V, et al. Percutaneous CT-guided fine needleaspiration cytology in the differential diagnosis of pancreaticlesions. Ital J Gastroenterol. 1994 Apr;26(3):126–31.
  15. Vogl TJ, Adwan H, Mann L, Al Haj Ibrahem I. Accuracy andsafety of percutaneous CT-guided pancreatic biopsies. RadiolMed. 2025 Sep 19;130(12):1903–8.
  16. Xin Y, Yang Y, Chen Y, Wang Y, Cao XJ, Zhou X. Safety andefficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous coaxial core biopsyof pancreatic lesions: a retrospective study. J Ultrasound. 2021Sep 23;24(3):269–77.
  17. Bao W, Zeng K, Huang J, Yu B, Gou Z, Lu Q. Comparative analysis of different biopsy techniques for pancreatic lesions indiagnostic value, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Quant ImagingMed Surg. 2025 May;15(5):4375–86.