Biopsy of a renal mass: where are we now?
OBJECTIVE
To review the most recent literature concerning renal mass biopsy with special consideration to three points: variation in results related to the standard used as comparison, biopsy in small renal masses (up to 4 cm in diameter) and the case for nondiagnostic biopsy.


RESULTS
The overall rate of failed and indeterminate biopsies shows a trend for improvement. However, selection bias and the lack of a uniform index test for comparison preclude a definitive statement. Fine-needle aspiration may equal results of core biopsy, but its role in the diagnostic algorithm is not yet defined. In-vivo accuracy decreases in small renal masses with the same limitations exposed for the overall literature on renal mass biopsy. When nondiagnostic biopsies are considered, there is a need for standardization of the nomenclature in order to compare results. Re-biopsies or surgery after a nondiagnostic biopsy shows malignancy in up to 75% of the cases of renal cell carcinoma.


CONCLUSIONS
There is a trend in increasing interest and accuracy on the subject of percutaneous biopsy of renal masses as well as a decreasing trend in the rate of nondiagnostic biopsies. In the small renal masses, most likely to be benign, a diagnostic percutaneous biopsy may have a definitive role. However, the higher rate of nondiagnostic results in this population calls for prospective studies with standard definitions and when possible homogenous index test to properly assess the diagnostic performance of the biopsy.
Laguna
M Pilar
MP
Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.p.lagunapes@amc.uva.nl
Kümmerlin
Intan
I
Rioja
Jorge
J
de la Rosette
Jean J M C H
JJ
D001706:Biopsy / Q000379:methods / Q000639:trends; D006801:Humans; D007668:Kidney / Q000473:pathology*; D007680:Kidney Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*