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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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