Review article

Tumour seeding following percutaneous needle biopsy: The real story!

Clinical Radiology · 2011Not stated in the abstract
Robertson E, Baxter G. Clinical Radiology. 2011. 66:1007-1014
Study type
Review article
Design
Review of the published literature
Sample size
Not stated in the abstract
Source
Clinical Radiology · 2011

In plain words

Sometimes during a needle biopsy a few cancer cells may be left behind along the path of the needle. This is very rare, although when it happens it can be serious. This article helps doctors understand the real size of this risk and talk with you about the biopsy more accurately. If your doctor thinks a biopsy is needed, worry about this complication alone should not stop you from having it; share your questions with your doctor.

Study population

This is a review article and no patients were enrolled. The subject is percutaneous diagnostic needle biopsies in patients with suspected malignancy at various anatomical sites.

Endpoints

A comprehensive review of tumour cell seeding and of the likelihood of this complication across the range of common diagnostic biopsy procedures. Further details are not given in the abstract.

Safety and side effects

The complication discussed is seeding of tumour cells along the biopsy needle tract. According to the abstract, it is rare but can have very serious consequences, especially in organ transplant candidates or patients with an expected good long-term survival. Numerical rates are not given in the abstract.

Clinical significance and place in guidelines

Based on the abstract, tumour cell seeding is a rare complication and should not automatically be regarded as a major barrier to biopsy, but it should be taken into account in patient counselling and risk stratification. The article's key recommendations are not described in the abstract; for details and their status in current guidelines, consult the full text and authoritative guidelines.

Limitations

This is a narrative review of the published literature, and the abstract does not give the search method, number of studies or numerical rates. The review dates from 2011 and does not include more recent evidence.

This summary was prepared by the editorial team from the published paper; the original paper is the final reference. Read the original abstract on PubMed.