Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Biopsy for Small Renal Masses and First Report of Post-Biopsy Adhesions: A Prospective Study

Tunkut Doganca, Can Obek

Abstract


48

Purpose: In the present study, we evaluate the biopsy results, complications due to biopsy, and the correlation with the final pathology specimen of 19 patients who had surgery for their small renal masses.

Materials and Methods: A total of 19 patients (11 male, 8 female) underwent percutaneous biopsy of their renal mass under ultrasound guidance. All patients subsequently underwent extirpative surgery. Preoperative biopsy results were compared with postoperative specimens in terms of tru-cut and fine needle aspiration biopsies’ histopathological accuracy and the complications noted.

Results: Average age was 56(±10.5) and tumor size was 37(±10.6) mm. Six patients had only fine needle, 4 patients had only tru-cut, and 9 patients had both fine needle and tru-cut biopsies.  Malignancy was reported in 14,  and benign results in 5 patients. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV’s were 64%, 100%, 100%, 33% respectively for FNAB. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV’s were all 100% for tru-cut core biopsy. Two perirenal hematoma was detected which resolved spontaneously under conservative therapy. In 11 patients there were adhesions due to biopsy, which caused difficulty of dissection during the operation.

Conclusion: In this relatively small serie, percutenous ultrasound guided biopsy to determine the histology of small renal masses achieved a high diagnostic accuracy. FNAB alone has a low diagnostic accuracy with false negative results when compared. However, tru-cut core biopsy has a diagnostic accuracy of %100. Therefore we recommend tru-cut biopsy when histopathological diagnosis is required for small renal masses. Adhesions due to biopsy may cause difficulties during dissection.


Full Text:

Just Accepted

16

References


Dechet CB, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, King BF, LeRoy AJ, Farrow GM, et al. Prospective analysis of computerized tomography and needle biopsy with permanent sectioning to determine the nature of solid renal masses in adults. The Journal of urology. 2003;169(1):71-4.

Campbell SC, Novick AC, Herts B, Fischler DF, Meyer J, Levin HS, et al. Prospective evaluation of fine needle aspiration of small, solid renal masses: accuracy and morbidity. Urology. 1997;50(1):25-9.

Schmidbauer J, Remzi M, Memarsadeghi M, Haitel A, Klingler HC, Katzenbeisser D, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy of renal masses. European urology. 2008;53(5):1003-11.

Volpe A, Mattar K, Finelli A, Kachura JR, Evans AJ, Geddie WR, et al. Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience. The Journal of urology. 2008;180(6):2333-7.

Marcelin C, Ambrosetti D, Bernhard JC, Roy C, Grenier N, Cornelis FH. Percutaneous image-guided biopsies of small renal tumors: Current practice and perspectives. Diagnostic and interventional imaging. 2017;98(9):589-99.

Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. European urology. 2015;67(5):913-24.

Murphy WM, Zambroni BR, Emerson LD, Moinuddin S, Lee LH. Aspiration biopsy of the kidney. Simultaneous collection of cytologic and histologic specimens. Cancer. 1985;56(1):200-5.

Truong LD, Todd TD, Dhurandhar B, Ramzy I. Fine-needle aspiration of renal masses in adults: analysis of results and diagnostic problems in 108 cases. Diagnostic cytopathology. 1999;20(6):339-49.

Wood BJ, Khan MA, McGovern F, Harisinghani M, Hahn PF, Mueller PR. Imaging guided biopsy of renal masses: indications, accuracy and impact on clinical management. The Journal of urology. 1999;161(5):1470-4.

Laguna MP, Kummerlin I, Rioja J, de la Rosette JJ. Biopsy of a renal mass: where are we now? Current opinion in urology. 2009;19(5):447-53.

Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, Zhou M, Novick AC, Campbell SC. Renal mass biopsy--a renaissance? The Journal of urology. 2008;179(1):20-7.

Richard PO, Jewett MA, Bhatt JR, Kachura JR, Evans AJ, Zlotta AR, et al. Renal Tumor Biopsy for Small Renal Masses: A Single-center 13-year Experience. European urology. 2015;68(6):1007-13.

Ball MW, Bezerra SM, Gorin MA, Cowan M, Pavlovich CP, Pierorazio PM, et al. Grade heterogeneity in small renal masses: potential implications for renal mass biopsy. The Journal of urology. 2015;193(1):36-40.

Blute ML, Jr., Drewry A, Abel EJ. Percutaneous biopsy for risk stratification of renal masses. Therapeutic advances in urology. 2015;7(5):265-74.

Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, Hofmann F, Stewart F, Norrie J, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy. European urology. 2016;69(4):660-73.

Dave CN, Seifman B, Chennamsetty A, Frontera R, Faraj K, Nelson R, et al. Office-based Ultrasound-guided Renal Core Biopsy Is Safe and Efficacious in the Management of Small Renal Masses. Urology. 2017;102:26-30.

Jeon HG, Seo SI, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Choi HY, et al. Percutaneous Kidney Biopsy for a Small Renal Mass: A Critical Appraisal of Results. The Journal of urology. 2016;195(3):568-73.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4215


Creative Commons License 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License