N H Azawi1,2, S A Tolouee3, M Madsen3, K D Berg3, C Dahl3, M Fode3. 1. Department of Urology, Zealand University Hospital, Sygehusvej 10, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark. azawinessn@gmail.com. 2. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. azawinessn@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology, Zealand University Hospital, Sygehusvej 10, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy in small renal masses ≤ 4 cm in response to the rising prevalence of renal masses. METHODS: Data from 129 consecutive patients who underwent biopsies of solid renal masses of ≤ 4 cm were prospectively collected between September 2014 and January 2017. In cases with inconclusive biopsies, a repeat biopsy was recommended. Histology from surgical specimens was used as gold standard to evaluate the accuracy of renal biopsies. RESULTS: The initial biopsies revealed malignancy in 77 patients (59.7%) and benign histology in 35 patients (27.1%), whereas 17 (13.2%) were inconclusive. Fifty-six patients with malignant histology underwent either partial or radical nephrectomy according to the physicians' recommendation, while two patients with benign histology requested surgery. In all cases, the biopsy diagnosis was confirmed upon final histopathology. Of the inconclusive cases, six underwent repeat biopsies all with benign histology. Further, three patients opted for immediate partial nephrectomy with benign oncocytoma in two and renal cell carcinoma in the third. The remaining eight patients opted for follow-up CT scans with no sign of progression with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. No biopsy related complications were reported in the first 30 days after RTB. Overall, the treatment strategy changed in 45 of 129 (35%) patients due to biopsy results. This was either due to benign findings or due to the discovery of non-renal cell cancers. CONCLUSION: Core needle biopsies of solid renal masses ≤ 4 cm have excellent accuracy and may be used to select the correct treatment. Importantly, they may serve to prevent overtreatment of benign tumors.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy in small renal masses ≤ 4 cm in response to the rising prevalence of renal masses. METHODS: Data from 129 consecutive patients who underwent biopsies of solid renal masses of ≤ 4 cm were prospectively collected between September 2014 and January 2017. In cases with inconclusive biopsies, a repeat biopsy was recommended. Histology from surgical specimens was used as gold standard to evaluate the accuracy of renal biopsies. RESULTS: The initial biopsies revealed malignancy in 77 patients (59.7%) and benign histology in 35 patients (27.1%), whereas 17 (13.2%) were inconclusive. Fifty-six patients with malignant histology underwent either partial or radical nephrectomy according to the physicians' recommendation, while two patients with benign histology requested surgery. In all cases, the biopsy diagnosis was confirmed upon final histopathology. Of the inconclusive cases, six underwent repeat biopsies all with benign histology. Further, three patients opted for immediate partial nephrectomy with benign oncocytoma in two and renal cell carcinoma in the third. The remaining eight patients opted for follow-up CT scans with no sign of progression with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. No biopsy related complications were reported in the first 30 days after RTB. Overall, the treatment strategy changed in 45 of 129 (35%) patients due to biopsy results. This was either due to benign findings or due to the discovery of non-renal cell cancers. CONCLUSION: Core needle biopsies of solid renal masses ≤ 4 cm have excellent accuracy and may be used to select the correct treatment. Importantly, they may serve to prevent overtreatment of benign tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Overtreatment of small renal masses; Renal cell carcinoma; Small renal masses; Ultrasound-guided biopsy
Authors: Nicola Schieda; Maali Al-Subhi; Trevor A Flood; Mohammed El-Khodary; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Frank J Rybicki; Kirstin M Shu; Edmund S Cibas; Julia R Fielding; Eric vanSonnenberg; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Melanie von Brandenstein; Jan Herden; Barbara Köditz; Manuel Huerta; Tim Nestler; Axel Heidenreich; Jochen W U Fries Journal: J Clin Lab Anal Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 2.352