Literature DB >> 12704038

Percutaneous biopsy of renal masses: sensitivity and negative predictive value stratified by clinical setting and size of masses.

Frank J Rybicki1, Kirstin M Shu, Edmund S Cibas, Julia R Fielding, Eric vanSonnenberg, Stuart G Silverman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our retrospective study was to evaluate the sensitivity and negative predictive value of percutaneous biopsy of renal masses stratified by clinical setting and the size of the mass.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We categorized 115 consecutive percutaneous biopsies of renal masses in 113 patients into four clinical settings and three groups of mass sizes. The sensitivity and negative predictive value were computed (with 95% confidence intervals [CI]) for each clinical setting and for each size group.
RESULTS: For all procedures (n = 115), the sensitivity and negative predictive value were 90% (95% CI, 81-95%) and 64% (95% CI, 44-81%), respectively. For patients with a known malignancy who presented with a renal mass (n = 55), the sensitivity and negative predictive value were 90% (95% CI, 78-96%) and 38% (95% CI, 10-74%), respectively. For patients with no known malignancy and suspected unresectable tumor (n = 36), the sensitivity and negative predictive value were 92% (95% CI, 76-98%) and 0%, respectively. For patients with no known malignancy who presented with a cystic mass (n = 16), the sensitivity and negative predictive value were 33% (95% CI, 2-87%) and 87% (95% CI, 58-98%), respectively. For patients who were not surgical candidates with a renal cell carcinoma (n = 8) that was thought to be resectable, both the sensitivity and negative predictive value were 100%. For masses 3 cm and less (n = 31), the sensitivity and negative predictive value were 84% (95% CI, 63-95%) and 60% (95% CI, 27-86%), respectively. For masses between 4 and 6 cm (n = 42), the sensitivity and negative predictive value were 97% (95% CI, 83-100%) and 89% (95% CI, 51-99%), respectively. For masses greater than 6 cm (n = 42), the sensitivity and negative predictive value were 87% (95% CI, 71-95%) and 44% (95% CI, 15-77%), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Percutaneous renal mass biopsy has a high sensitivity in three clinical settings: patients with a known malignancy, patients with no known malignancy and suspected unresectable tumor, and nonsurgical patients with a mass suspected to be a resectable renal cell carcinoma. Negative results in small (< or = 3 cm) and large (> 6 cm) masses should be viewed with caution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12704038     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801281

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  43 in total

1.  The role of percutaneous renal biopsy in the management of small renal masses.

Authors:  Rou Wang; Amy Y Li; David P Wood
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Renal mass biopsy to guide treatment decisions for small incidental renal tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Pari V Pandharipande; Debra A Gervais; Rebecca I Hartman; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Adam S Feldman; Peter R Mueller; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Assessment of multiphasic contrast-enhanced MR textures in differentiating small renal mass subtypes.

Authors:  Uyen N Hoang; S Mojdeh Mirmomen; Osorio Meirelles; Jianhua Yao; Maria Merino; Adam Metwalli; W Marston Linehan; Ashkan A Malayeri
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-12

4.  Active surveillance for small renal masses.

Authors:  Phillip M Pierorazio; Elias S Hyams; Jeffrey K Mullins; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2012

Review 5.  Role of percutaneous needle biopsy for renal masses.

Authors:  Elaine M Caoili; Matthew S Davenport
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.513

6.  Accuracy and implications of percutaneous renal biopsy in the management of renal masses.

Authors:  Diana C Londoño; Melanie C Wuerstle; Anil A Thomas; Luis E Salazar; Jin-Wen Y Hsu; Tarek Danial; Gary W Chien
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013

7.  Extensive renal infarction following percutaneous biopsy of a small renal mass: A case report.

Authors:  Samuel Abourbih; Saad Aldousari; Fadi Brimo; Atilla Omeroglu; Wassim Kassouf
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 8.  Biopsy of renal masses: when and why.

Authors:  V Anik Sahni; Stuart G Silverman
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2009-07-06       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 9.  Imaging and management of the incidentally discovered renal mass.

Authors:  Jonathon Willatt; Isaac R Francis
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2009-10-02       Impact factor: 3.909

10.  Watchful waiting in the treatment of the small renal mass.

Authors:  K Clint Cary; Chandru P Sundaram
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009 Oct-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.