Assess the Benefit of Interventional Radiologist Performing an Image Guided Biopsy

Abstract Purpose To determine whether there is any benefit in diagnostic accuracy, reduction in periprocedural complications, when image-guided biopsies are performed by interventional radiologist as compared to a general radiologist or other physician without prior special interventional training. Patients and Methods This study is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients that underwent imaging-guided core biopsies during one year in our hospital. Information collected included: patient age, gender, coagulation status, organ biopsied, imaging modality and equipment used, number of samples obtained, post-biopsy complications, histopathological results, and previous interventional training of a physician performing the biopsy. The quantitative data from patient charts was analyzed using a statistical program, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Results 449 patients were included in this study: 132 were performed using Computed Tomography guidance and 317 were performed under ultrasound guidance. The success rate of core biopsies was compared between different specialists, and was measured based on periprocedural complications, necessity of medical intervention and/or hospitalization after biopsy procedure, true positive histopathology results, and need to perform repeat biopsy of the same lesion owing to inconclusive results. Overall, IR had a success rate of 88.13%, non-IR had a success rate of 61.07%, and nephrologists had a success rate of 77.65%. The post biopsy complication rates were 5.48%, 27.52%, and 17.65% for procedures performed by IR, non-IR, and nephrologists respectively. Conclusion Our study shows an overall higher success rate and improved patient outcome when image guided biopsies were performed by IR, as compared to other non-IR physicians.