Literature DB >> 23253955

Accuracy of determining small renal mass management with risk stratified biopsies: confirmation by final pathology.

Schuyler J Halverson1, Lakshmi P Kunju, Ritu Bhalla, Adam J Gadzinski, Megan Alderman, David C Miller, Jeffrey S Montgomery, Alon Z Weizer, Angela Wu, Khaled S Hafez, J Stuart Wolf.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assess the accuracy of a biopsy directed treatment algorithm in correctly assigning active surveillance vs treatment in patients with small renal masses by comparing biopsy results with final surgical pathology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1999 to 2011, 151 patients with small renal masses 4 cm or smaller underwent biopsy and subsequent surgical excision. Biopsy revealed cell type and grade in 133 patients, allowing the hypothetical assignment of surveillance vs treatment using an algorithm incorporating small renal mass size and histological risk group. We compared the biopsy directed management recommendation with the ideal management as defined by final surgical pathology.
RESULTS: Biopsy called for surveillance of 36 small renal masses and treatment of 97 small renal masses. Final pathology showed 11 patients initially assigned to surveillance should have been assigned to treatment (8.3% of all patients, 31% of those recommended for surveillance), whereas no patients moved from treatment to surveillance. Agreement between biopsy and final pathology was 92%. Using management based on final pathology as the reference standard, biopsy had a negative predictive value of 0.69 and positive predictive value 1.0 for determining management. Of the 11 misclassified cases, 7 had a biopsy indicating grade 1 clear cell renal cancer which was upgraded to grade 2 (5) or grade 3 (2). After modifying the histological risk group assignment to account for undergrading of clear cell renal cancer, agreement improved to 97%, with a negative predictive value of 0.86 and a positive predictive value of 1.0.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that compared to final pathology, biopsy of small renal masses accurately informs an algorithm incorporating size and histological risk group that directs the management of small renal masses.
Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23253955     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  53 in total

1.  Association of Prevalence of Benign Pathologic Findings After Partial Nephrectomy With Preoperative Imaging Patterns in the United States From 2007 to 2014.

Authors:  Jae Heon Kim; Shufeng Li; Yash Khandwala; Kyung Jin Chung; Hyung Keun Park; Benjamin I Chung
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  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 3.  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

4.  Coexisting hybrid malignancy in a solitary sporadic solid benign renal mass: implications for treating patients following renal biopsy.

Authors:  Serge Ginzburg; Robert Uzzo; Tahseen Al-Saleem; Essel Dulaimi; John Walton; Anthony Corcoran; Elizabeth Plimack; Reza Mehrazin; Jeffrey Tomaszewski; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard Greenberg; Marc Smaldone; Alexander Kutikov
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Perioperative morbidity, oncological outcomes and predictors of pT3a upstaging for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for cT1 tumors.

Authors:  Pascal Mouracade; Onder Kara; Julien Dagenais; M J Maurice; R J Nelson; Ercan Malkoc; J H Kaouk
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Imaging of Solid Renal Masses.

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

7.  Diagnostic Performance and Interreader Agreement of a Standardized MR Imaging Approach in the Prediction of Small Renal Mass Histology.

Authors:  Fernando U Kay; Noah E Canvasser; Yin Xi; Daniella F Pinho; Daniel N Costa; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Gaurav Khatri; John R Leyendecker; Takeshi Yokoo; Aaron H Lay; Nicholas Kavoussi; Ersin Koseoglu; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 11.105

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.