OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of tumour diameter and anatomy on the success and complication rates of small renal mass (SRM, ≤4 cm) core biopsy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of SRMs that underwent ultrasound or CT-guided biopsy. Diagnostic and complication rates were compared according to tumour size (subcategorised as axial diameter ≤2 cm, >2 to- ≤3 cm, >3-≤4 cm) and anatomical disposition (exophytic/endophytic, centrality, polar location and anterior/posterior). RESULTS: 94 patients (54 male; age range 21.8-84.3 years) with 95 SRMs underwent biopsy. The first biopsy was diagnostic in 81/95 (85.3%). Seven patients underwent repeat biopsy (6/7 diagnostic), to give an overall diagnostic rate of 91.5%. The primary diagnostic rates in the ≤2, >2-≤3 , >3-≤4 cm groups were 21/25 (84%); 38/44 (86.4%) and 22/26 (84.6%) respectively and were similar (p = 1.00). Anterior and upper pole SRMs were more likely to fail initial biopsy (odds ratio 13.8, p < 0.01; and odds ratio 4.35, p = 0.04) respectively, but other anatomical factors were not relevant. Complications occurred in 14% (all conservatively managed perinephric haematomas; Clavien-Dindo Grade 1) and size or location were not relevant. CONCLUSION: Image-guided biopsy of SRMs has a high diagnostic rate irrespective of tumour size. Anterior and upper pole location had lower diagnostic rates. Biopsy should be considered for all patients with SRMs, if the result will impact on management and we list specific scenarios where an SRM biopsy may be helpful. Advances in knowledge: SRM size does not affect the likelihood of a diagnostic biopsy.
OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of tumour diameter and anatomy on the success and complication rates of small renal mass (SRM, ≤4 cm) core biopsy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of SRMs that underwent ultrasound or CT-guided biopsy. Diagnostic and complication rates were compared according to tumour size (subcategorised as axial diameter ≤2 cm, >2 to- ≤3 cm, >3-≤4 cm) and anatomical disposition (exophytic/endophytic, centrality, polar location and anterior/posterior). RESULTS: 94 patients (54 male; age range 21.8-84.3 years) with 95 SRMs underwent biopsy. The first biopsy was diagnostic in 81/95 (85.3%). Seven patients underwent repeat biopsy (6/7 diagnostic), to give an overall diagnostic rate of 91.5%. The primary diagnostic rates in the ≤2, >2-≤3 , >3-≤4 cm groups were 21/25 (84%); 38/44 (86.4%) and 22/26 (84.6%) respectively and were similar (p = 1.00). Anterior and upper pole SRMs were more likely to fail initial biopsy (odds ratio 13.8, p < 0.01; and odds ratio 4.35, p = 0.04) respectively, but other anatomical factors were not relevant. Complications occurred in 14% (all conservatively managed perinephric haematomas; Clavien-Dindo Grade 1) and size or location were not relevant. CONCLUSION: Image-guided biopsy of SRMs has a high diagnostic rate irrespective of tumour size. Anterior and upper pole location had lower diagnostic rates. Biopsy should be considered for all patients with SRMs, if the result will impact on management and we list specific scenarios where an SRM biopsy may be helpful. Advances in knowledge: SRM size does not affect the likelihood of a diagnostic biopsy.
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
Authors: Nathalie Rioux-Leclercq; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Vincenzo Ficarra; Luca Cindolo; Alexandre de la Taille; Jacques Tostain; Richard Zigeuner; Arnaud Mejean; Jean-Jacques Patard Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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
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
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mark W Ball; Stephania M Bezerra; Michael A Gorin; Morgan Cowan; Christian P Pavlovich; Phillip M Pierorazio; George J Netto; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matvey Tsivian; Edward N Rampersaud; Maria del Pilar Laguna Pes; Steven Joniau; Raymond J Leveillee; William B Shingleton; Monish Aron; Charles Y Kim; Angelo M DeMarzo; Mihir M Desai; James D Meler; James F Donovan; Hans Christoph Klingler; David R Sopko; John F Madden; Michael Marberger; Michael N Ferrandino; Thomas J Polascik Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Charlie J Gillis; Ricardo Rendon; Landan P MacDonald; Michael A S Jewett; Christopher French; Henry Ajzenberg; Ashraf Almatar; Mohammed Abdolell; Michael Organ Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Matthew Seager; Shankar Kumar; Emma Lim; Graham Munneke; Steve Bandula; Miles Walkden Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Blanca Paño; Alexandre Soler; Debra A Goldman; Rafael Salvador; Laura Buñesch; Carmen Sebastià; Carlos Nicolau Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Selma Masic; Marshall Strother; Laura C Kidd; Brian Egleston; Avery Braun; Abhishek Srivastava; Marc Smaldone; Barton Milestone; Rosaleen Parsons; Rosalia Viterbo; Richard Greenberg; David Chen; Alexander Kutikov; Robert Uzzo Journal: Urology Date: 2021-08-08 Impact factor: 2.633