Literature DB >> 25498574

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

Joel Prince1, Eric Bultman1, Louis Hinshaw1, Anna Drewry1, Michael Blute1, Sara Best1, Fred T Lee1, Timothy Ziemlewicz1, Meghan Lubner1, Fangfang Shi1, Stephen Y Nakada1, E Jason Abel2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Identification of patient and tumor characteristics associated with nondiagnostic biopsies is necessary to improve prebiopsy counseling and patient selection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the clinical records and prebiopsy imaging of all patients treated with percutaneous biopsy for a renal mass 7 cm or less. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the association between biopsy outcome and clinical/radiographic features.
RESULTS: A total of 565 biopsies of renal tumors 7 cm or less in 525 patients were included in the study. There was no significant difference in age, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity score or gender between the patient cohorts with diagnostic and nondiagnostic biopsy. In 83 of 565 patients (14.7%) overall and in 72 of the 413 (17.4%) with a mass of 4 cm or less the biopsy findings were nondiagnostic. Overall 14.7% of masses were cystic and 85.3% were solid with a median tumor size of 2.75 cm (IQR 2.05-4.25). Independent predictors of nondiagnostic biopsy included cystic features, enhancement less than 20 HU, left tumor, tumor diameter and skin-to-tumor distance. The nondiagnostic rate of repeat biopsies was 20.8%, which did not statistically differ from the nondiagnostic rate at the initial renal mass biopsy attempt. Radiologist or pathologist experience was not associated with the biopsy nondiagnostic rate. In 7 of 565 patients (1.2%) hospital admission was required for adverse events after biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Nondiagnostic renal mass biopsies are more common in cystic, nonenhancing, small masses when patients have a skin-to-tumor distance of 13 cm or greater. Excluding patients with these criteria decreased the nondiagnostic rate from 14.7% to 8.7%.
Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; carcinoma; diagnosis; kidney; pathology; renal cell

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25498574      PMCID: PMC4573549          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.12.021

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


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  How I do it: evaluating renal masses.

Authors:  Gary M Israel; Morton A Bosniak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Renal mass biopsy--a renaissance?

Authors:  Brian R Lane; Mary K Samplaski; Brian R Herts; Ming Zhou; Andrew C Novick; Steven C Campbell
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-11-13       Impact factor: 7.450

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

Authors:  Michael J Leveridge; Antonio Finelli; John R Kachura; Andrew Evans; Hannah Chung; Daniel A Shiff; Kimberly Fernandes; Michael A S Jewett
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours.

Authors:  Alessandro Volpe; Antonio Finelli; Inderbir S Gill; Michael A S Jewett; Guido Martignoni; Thomas J Polascik; Mesut Remzi; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  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

Review 8.  Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma--a meta-analysis and review.

Authors:  David A Kunkle; Brian L Egleston; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Evaluating overall survival and competing risks of death in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma using a comprehensive nomogram.

Authors:  Alexander Kutikov; Brian L Egleston; Yu-Ning Wong; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-23       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  The value of preoperative needle core biopsy for diagnosing benign lesions among small, incidentally detected renal masses.

Authors:  Beverley A Shannon; Ronald J Cohen; Hildemarie de Bruto; Robert J Davies
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  The role of renal biopsy in small renal masses.

Authors:  Rodolfo Burruni; Benoit Lhermitte; Yannick Cerantola; Thomas Tawadros; Jean-Yves Meuwly; Dominik Berthold; Patrice Jichlinski; Massimo Valerio
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  Diagnostic Accuracy and Risks of Biopsy in the Diagnosis of a Renal Mass Suspicious for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Hiten D Patel; Michael H Johnson; Phillip M Pierorazio; Stephen M Sozio; Ritu Sharma; Emmanuel Iyoha; Eric B Bass; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Should Small Renal Masses Be Biopsied?

Authors:  Ricardo R N Leão; Ardalan E Ahmad; Patrick O Richard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  The evolving role of renal mass biopsy.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; E Jason Abel
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-02

5.  Image-guided biopsy of small (≤4 cm) renal masses: the effect of size and anatomical location on biopsy success rate and complications.

Authors:  Matthew J Seager; Uday Patel; Christopher J Anderson; Michael Gonsalves
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  Harnessing the Genomic Landscape of the Small Renal Mass to Guide Clinical Management.

Authors:  Andrew W Silagy; Alejandro Sanchez; Brandon J Manley; Karim Bensalah; Axel Bex; Jose A Karam; Börje Ljungberg; Brian Shuch; A Ari Hakimi
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2019-04-28

Review 7.  Percutaneous biopsy for risk stratification of renal masses.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; Anna Drewry; Edwin Jason Abel
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2015-10

8.  Comprehensive assessment of the morbidity of renal mass biopsy: A population-based assessment of biopsy-related complications.

Authors:  Alaina Garbens; Christopher J D Wallis; Zachary Klaassen; Refik Saskin; Lesley Plumptre; Ronald Kodama; Sender Herschorn; Robert K Nam
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Evaluating the microRNA-target gene regulatory network in renal cell carcinomas, identification for potential biomarkers and critical pathways.

Authors:  Jun Li; Jian-Hua Huang; Qing-Hua Qu; Qier Xia; Deng-Shan Wang; Lei Jin; Chang Sheng
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-05-15

Review 10.  Office-Based Renal Tumor Biopsy: a Paradigm Change in the Management of a Small Renal Mass?

Authors:  Roshan M Patel; Zhamshid Okhunov; Pengbo Jiang; Shlomi Tapiero; Jaime Landman
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.