CT fluoroscopy-guided pancreas transplant biopsies: a retrospective evaluation of predictors of complications and success rates

Indications, Techniques, and Barriers for Pancreas Transplant Biopsy: A Consensus Perspective From a Survey of US Centers

BACKGROUND

Pancreas transplant biopsy practices for the diagnosis of rejection or other pathologies are not well described.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of staff at US pancreas transplant programs (March 22, 2022, to August 22, 2022) to assess current program practices and perceptions about the utility and challenges in the performance and interpretation of pancreas allograft biopsies.

RESULTS

Respondents represented 65% (76/117) of active adult pancreas transplant programs, capturing 66% of recent pancreas transplant volume in the United States. Participants were most often nephrologists (52%), followed by surgeons (46%), and other staff (4%). Pancreas allograft biopsies were performed mostly by interventional radiologists (74%), followed by surgeons (11%), nephrologists (8%), and gastroenterologists (1%). Limitations in the radiologist's or biopsy performer's comfort level or expertise to safely perform a biopsy, or to obtain sufficient/adequate samples were the two most common challenges with pancreas transplant biopsies. Pancreas transplant biopsies were read by local pathologists at a majority (86%) of centers. Challenges reported with pancreas biopsy interpretation included poor reliability, lack of reporting of C4d staining, lack of reporting of rejection grading, and inconclusive interpretation of the biopsy. Staff at a third of responding programs (34%) stated that they rarely or never perform pancreas allograft biopsies and treat presumed rejection empirically.

CONCLUSIONS

This national survey identified significant variation in clinical practices related to pancreas allograft biopsies and potential barriers to pancreas transplant utilization across the United States. Consideration of strategies to improve program experience with percutaneous pancreas biopsy and to support optimal management of pancreas allograft rejection informed by histology is warranted.

Helical CT versus intermittent CT fluoroscopic guidance for musculoskeletal needle biopsies: impact on radiation exposure, procedure time, diagnostic yield, and adverse events

OBJECTIVE

Image-guided percutaneous needle biopsies are essential in the workup of musculoskeletal (MSK) lesions. While helical CT (HCT) is well established, intermittent CT fluoroscopy (iCTF) is an increasingly used alternative. The purpose of this study is to establish whether differences in subject radiation exposure, procedure time, yield, or adverse events exist between HCT and iCTF guidance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive MSK needle biopsies performed on a single-CT scanner over a 12-month period at a tertiary academic center. Subject demographics, radiation dose, and outcomes were abstracted from the medical record. Comparisons between the two cohorts were performed using Student's t-test for continuous data and using Fisher's exact test for categorical data and a two-tailed p value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen adults (115 (53.2%) females) with a mean age of 58.8 ± 18.4 years, underwent 216 biopsies (109 (50.5%) HCT guided, 107 (49.5%) iCTF guided) between June 2017 and June 2018. Dose-length product (DLP) and volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) were significantly higher for the HCT cohort (HCT 698.9 ± 400.8 mGycm vs iCTF 312.8 ± 170.8 mGycm; p < 0.005 and HCT 19.1 mGy ± 8.8 vs iCTF 6.9 mGy ± 1.5, p < 0.001). No significant difference in diagnostic yield, procedure time, or adverse event rate was identified.

CONCLUSION

For CT-guided MSK needle biopsies, iCTF decreases subject radiation dose compared to HCT without negatively affecting outcomes. iCTF should be strongly considered by radiologists performing MSK biopsies given the reduced patient radiation exposure.