needle tract seeding
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

88
(FIVE YEARS 29)

H-INDEX

17
(FIVE YEARS 3)

2021 ◽  
pp. 977-982
Author(s):  
Nozomi Uozumi ◽  
Shoji Oura ◽  
Shinichiro Makimoto

A 77-year-old woman with epigastralgia was referred to our hospital. Abdominal computed tomography showed a hypointense mass in the pancreatic tail. Abdominal and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) showed a hypo-echoic mass, 25 × 25 mm in size, with pancreatic duct dilatation. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was performed to the mass through gastric posterior wall. Pathological examination showed atypical cells growing papillary or tubular fashion, leading to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma. Under the preoperative diagnosis of T2N0M0 pancreatic cancer, the patient underwent distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Macroscopic view of the resected specimen showed a presumed puncture-induced pancreatic pseudocyst adjacent to the pancreas. Pathological examination showed well-differentiated adenocarcinoma and a pseudocyst with presumed migrated atypical cells in the pseudocyst wall. The patient recovered uneventfully and has been on outpatient follow-up with adjuvant TS-1 therapy. Optimal treatment of pancreatic cancer naturally needs preoperative definitive diagnosis more strictly than other solid malignancies due to its much higher operative harm to the patients. EUS-FNA is a safe and effective diagnostic method but needs careful attention to the needle tract seeding.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 3662-3667
Author(s):  
Liu-Hong Shi ◽  
Liang Zhou ◽  
Yin-Jiao Lei ◽  
Lian Xia ◽  
Lei Xie

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Zhou ◽  
Paari Murugan ◽  
Faqian Li ◽  
Lihong Bu

Abstract Background Percutaneous needle biopsy of renal masses has been increasingly utilized to aid the diagnosis and guide management. It is generally considered as a safe procedure. However, tumor seeding along the needle tract, one of the complications, theoretically poses potential risk of tumor spread by seeded malignant cells. Prior studies on the frequency of needle tract seeding in renal tumor biopsies are limited and clinical significance of biopsy-associated tumor seeding remains largely controversial. Methods Here we investigated the frequencies of biopsy needle tract tumor seeding at our institution by reviewing the histology of renal cell carcinoma nephrectomy specimens with a prior biopsy within the last seventeen years. Biopsy site changes were recognized as a combination of foreign body reaction, hemosiderin deposition, fibrosis and fat necrosis. The histologic evidence of needle tract tumor seeding was identified as clusters of tumor cells embedded in perinephric tissue spatially associated with the biopsy site. In addition, association between parameters of biopsy techniques and tumor seeding were investigated. Results We observed needle tract tumor seeding to perinephric tissue in six out of ninety-eight (6 %) renal cell carcinoma cases including clear cell renal cell carcinoma, papillary renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe, and clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma. The needle tract tumor seeding was exclusively observed in papillary renal cell carcinomas (6/28, 21 %) that were unifocal, small-sized (≤ 4 cm), confined to the kidney and had type 1 features. No recurrence or metastasis was observed in the papillary renal cell carcinoma cases with tumor seeding or the stage-matched cases without tumor seeding. Conclusions Our study demonstrated a higher than reported frequency of needle tract tumor seeding. Effective communication between pathologists and clinicians as well as documentation of tumor seeding is recommended. Further studies with a larger patient cohort and longer follow up to evaluate the impact of needle tract tumor seeding on long term prognosis are needed. This may also help reach a consensus on appropriate pathologic staging of renal cell carcinoma when the only site of perinephric fat invasion is within a biopsy needle tract.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng You ◽  
David Aaron Haynes ◽  
Sudhen Desai ◽  
Amy Dimachkieh ◽  
Daniel Chelius

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482199198
Author(s):  
Fadi S. Dahdaleh ◽  
Samer A. Naffouje ◽  
Scott K. Sherman ◽  
Sivesh K. Kamarajah ◽  
George I. Salti

Background Biopsy to achieve tissue diagnosis (TD) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risks needle tract seeding. With chest wall and peritoneal recurrences reported, TD could worsen cancer outcomes. We investigated HCC outcomes after TD compared to clinical diagnosis (CD), hypothesizing that TD adversely affects overall survival (OS). Methods The National Cancer Database (NCDB) Participant User File for liver cancer was reviewed, including patients with nonmetastatic HCC treated with major hepatectomy or transplantation. Clinical diagnosis patients were matched 1:1 to TD patients per propensity score. Survival was examined in the unmatched and matched cohorts. Results Of 172 283 cases, 16 366 met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 60.8 years, 12 100 (73.9%) were male, and 48.4% of patients received hepatectomies. Clinical diagnosis occurred in 70.4% of cases, and 29.6% underwent TD. Cox regression confirmed the diagnostic method as an independent predictor of OS in addition to age, Charlson-Deyo score, grade, delay of surgery, lymphovascular invasion, nodal stage, and procedure type, favoring transplantation over hepatectomy. After propensity matching on these factors, 4251 patients were matched from each group. In the matched cohort, patients with TD had a significantly lower OS than patients with CD (median: 65.5 vs. 85.6 ± 2.7 months, P < .001). The corresponding 5-year survival was lower in the TD group (47.6% vs. 60.9% P < .001). Conclusion Hepatocellular carcinoma patients with preoperative TD had decreased OS compared to CD, which persisted after propensity matching. This study supports avoiding biopsy for HCC whenever possible.


Suizo ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 394-402
Author(s):  
Masahiro FUSE ◽  
Yasuhiro YABUSHITA ◽  
Nobuhiro TSUCHIYA ◽  
Yu SAWADA ◽  
Yuki HOMMA ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (40) ◽  
pp. 6182-6194
Author(s):  
Ruo-Yu Gao ◽  
Ben-Hua Wu ◽  
Xin-Ying Shen ◽  
Tie-Li Peng ◽  
De-Feng Li ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document