Reply

Abstract

Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by UCLA Digital Coll SVCS on 05/06/15 from IP address 149.142.243.67. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved Letters Reply Although Loizides et al. [1] read our ar- ticle [2] with “great interest and surprise,” we read their letter with shock. It appears that the writers have completely missed the objective of our article. Rather than create a laundry list of responses to the comments, we will address the two salient points that were obviously lost or overlooked. The objective of our article [2] was to “better elucidate factors that may contrib- ute to the success of CT-guided core needle biopsy.” The Results section addresses this very clearly. The purpose was not to com- pare different guidance techniques to deter- mine a “modality of choice.” This article was not designed to evaluate different imaging techniques for the diagno- sis of bone and soft-tissue tumors. It addresses CT as a tool for guiding biopsy. Our patients generally present with multiple outside studies, including radiography, MRI, ultrasound, radio- nuclide, and even PET examinations. Such fea- tures as necrosis, aggressive-appearing bone destruction, and vascularity are noted on these outside studies, and localization is transferred to unenhanced CT to target the area for tissue sampling. Admittedly, the legend for Figure 1 is somewhat misleading in alluding that CT was the only imaging tool available. We regret that our article [2] caused so much confusion for Loizides et al. [1]. Leanne L. Seeger Kambiz Motamedi David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; Scott D. Nelson Santa Monica–UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, CA DOI:10.2214/AJR.11.7865 WEB—This is a Web exclusive article.