Literature DB >> 21704449

Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondiagnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy.

Michael J Leveridge1, Antonio Finelli, John R Kachura, Andrew Evans, Hannah Chung, Daniel A Shiff, Kimberly Fernandes, Michael A S Jewett.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous needle core biopsy has become established in the management of small renal masses ≤ 4 cm (SRMs). Recent series have reported success rates of ≥ 80%. Nondiagnostic results continue to be problematic.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the results of SRM biopsy and the outcomes of nondiagnostic biopsy and repeat biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing renal tumor biopsy (RTB) for suspected renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were included in a prospectively maintained database. MEASUREMENTS: The database was analyzed retrospectively to determine the pathology and outcomes of SRM biopsy. Outcomes of patients with nondiagnostic biopsy were determined. Patients undergoing repeat biopsy were identified and their outcomes analyzed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Three hundred forty-five biopsies were performed (mean diameter: 2.5 cm). Biopsy was diagnostic in 278 cases (80.6%) and nondiagnostic in 67 cases (19.4%). Among diagnostic biopsies, 221 (79.4%) were malignant, 94.1% of which were RCC. Histologic subtyping and grading of RCC was possible in 88.0% and 63.5% of cases, respectively. Repeat biopsy was performed in 12 of the 67 nondiagnostic cases, and a diagnosis was possible in 10 (83.3%). Eight lesions were malignant and two were oncocytic neoplasms. Pathology was available for 15 masses after initial nondiagnostic biopsy; 11 (73%) were malignant. Larger tumor size and a solid nature on imaging predicted a successful biopsy on multivariate analysis. Grade 1 complications were experienced in 10.1% of cases, with no major bleeding and no seeding of the biopsy tract. There was one grade 3a complication (0.3%). This is a retrospective study and some data are unavailable on factors that may affect biopsy success rates. Repeat biopsy was not standard practice prior to this analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: RTB can be performed safely and accurately in the investigation of renal masses ≤ 4 cm. A nondiagnostic biopsy should not be considered a surrogate for the absence of malignancy. Repeat biopsy can be performed with similar accuracy, providing a diagnosis for most patients.
Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21704449     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  107 in total

1.  CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour cutting needle biopsy: retrospective evaluation of diagnostic yield, safety, and risk factors for diagnostic failure.

Authors:  Toshihiro Iguchi; Takao Hiraki; Yusuke Matsui; Hiroyasu Fujiwara; Jun Sakurai; Yoshihisa Masaoka; Hideo Gobara; Susumu Kanazawa
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Evaluation and management of small renal masses: looking beyond the tumor margin.

Authors:  Michael Garcia-Roig; Michael A Gorin; Merce Jorda
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Management of kidney cancer: canadian kidney cancer forum consensus update 2011.

Authors:  Mas Jewett; A Finelli; C Kollmannsberger; L Wood; L Legere; J Basiuk; C Canil; D Heng; N Reaume; S Tanguay; M Atkins; G Bjarnason; J Dancey; M Evans; N Fleshner; M Haider; A Kapoor; R Uzzo; D Maskens; D Soulieres; G Yousef; N Basappa; N Bendali; P Black; N Blais; I Cagiannos; M Care; R Chow; H Chung; P Czaykowski; D Derosa; K Durrant; S Ellard; G Farquharson; C Filion-Brulotte; J Gingerich; L Godbout; R Grant; W Hamilton; W Kassouf; G Kurban; K Lane; Jb Lattouf; D Lau; M Leveridge; J McCarthy; R Moore; S North; P O'brien; E Pituskin; P Racine; R Rendon; A So; S Sridhar; K Stubbs; Z Su; L Taylor; T Udall; P Venner; W Vogel; S Yap; P Yau; M Cooper; N Giroux; D Miron; D Mosher; K Ross; J Willacy
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Canadian guidelines for SRMs: How Canadian are they?

Authors:  Peter Black
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Canadian guidelines for the management of small renal masses (SRM).

Authors:  Michael A S Jewett; Ricardo Rendon; Louis Lacombe; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Simon Tanguay; Wassim Kassouf; Mike Leveridge; Ilias Cagiannos; Anil Kapoor; Stephen Pautler; Darrel Drachtenberg; Ronald Moore; Martin Gleave; Andrew Evans; Massoom Haider; Antonio Finelli
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 6.  Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses: A Review of the Aims and Preliminary Results of the DISSRM Registry.

Authors:  Matthew R Danzig; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; Mohamad E Allaf; James M McKiernan; Phillip M Pierorazio
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Imaging of Solid Renal Masses.

Authors:  Fernando U Kay; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.241

8.  Identification and Validation of Radiographic Enhancement for Reliable Differentiation of CD117(+) Benign Renal Oncocytoma and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jay Amin; Bo Xu; Shervin Badkhshan; Terrance T Creighton; Daniel Abbotoy; Christine Murekeyisoni; Kristopher M Attwood; Thomas Schwaab; Craig Hendler; Michael Petroziello; Charles L Roche; Eric C Kauffman
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Utilization of renal mass biopsy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  John T Leppert; Janet Hanley; Todd H Wagner; Benjamin I Chung; Sandy Srinivas; Glenn M Chertow; James D Brooks; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Patient and tumor characteristics can predict nondiagnostic renal mass biopsy findings.

Authors:  Joel Prince; Eric Bultman; Louis Hinshaw; Anna Drewry; Michael Blute; Sara Best; Fred T Lee; Timothy Ziemlewicz; Meghan Lubner; Fangfang Shi; Stephen Y Nakada; E Jason Abel
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.