Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of imaging-guided needle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150 cases.
OBJECTIVE
To review our method of perform needle biopsies of renal masses.


METHODS
We analysed 150 consecutive imaging-guided percutaneous biopsies. The pathological diagnosis was verified on clinical outcome in 129 cases (40 surgical resection, 53 thermal ablation, two medical treatment and 34 watchful waiting). Twenty-six patients underwent fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB), 45 core-needle biopsy (CB) and 58 FNAB + CB. After review by two expert pathologists, cumulative accuracy of all FNAB (84) and all CB (103) was calculated. The rate of complications and mass management other than surgery was estimated.


RESULTS
The final diagnosis was malignancy in 97 cases (benign mass in 32). FNAB correctly diagnosed 64/84 masses (76.2%), CB 96/103 (93.2%). Of 58 masses submitted for both FNAB and CB, CB provided a 22.5% accuracy improvement. Major and minor complications occurred in 0% and 5.3%. Renal biopsy altered clinical management in 89/129 cases (68.9%), in terms of choosing therapeutic options other than surgery.


CONCLUSIONS
CB is more accurate than FNAB and should be preferred in renal mass biopsy. FNAB may precede CB when an expert pathologist can immediately evaluate the samples. Renal biopsy influences renal mass management.
Veltri
Andrea
A
Institute of Radiology, University of Torino, Facoltà San Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano (TO), Italy. andrea.veltri@unito.it
Garetto
Irene
I
Tosetti
Irene
I
Busso
Marco
M
Volpe
Alessandro
A
Pacchioni
Donatella
D
Bollito
Enrico
E
Papotti
Mauro
M
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001707:Biopsy, Needle / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007558:Italy / Q000453:epidemiology; D007680:Kidney Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000473:pathology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015995:Prevalence; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D025321:Surgery, Computer-Assisted / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D018084:Ultrasonography, Interventional / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D055815:Young Adult
J Urol. 2007 Oct;178(4 Pt 1):1184-8; discussion 1188
17698122
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 May;20(5):674-9
19299170
South Med J. 2002 Feb;95(2):212-7
11846247
Curr Opin Urol. 2009 Sep;19(5):447-53
19571757
Lancet. 2007 Dec 22;370(9605):2071-3
18156012
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Aug;179(2):373-8
12130435
Am J Surg Pathol. 1982 Oct;6(7):655-63
7180965
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006 Oct;17(10):1563-70
17056998
BJU Int. 2007 Aug;100(2):287-90
17617136
BJU Int. 2005 May;95(7):1039-42
15839927
J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2333-7
18930274
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Jul;20(7 Suppl):S240-9
19394868
J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):1957-62
17070218
Radiology. 2000 Aug;216(2):506-10
10924578
J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):425-31
16406965
Urology. 1997 Jul;50(1):25-9
9218014
J Urol. 2008 Apr;179(4):1227-33; discussion 1233-4
18280512
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):563-70
17242269
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Mar;188(3):792-7
17312070
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jun;188(6):1500-5
17515368
Eur J Cancer. 2008 Oct;44(15):2152-61
18829302
J Urol. 2004 May;171(5):1802-5
15076280
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008 Jul;19(7):973-9
18589310
Clin Radiol. 2004 Mar;59(3):262-7
15037139
J Urol. 2007 Aug;178(2):379-86
17561170
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jul;185(1):64-71
15972400
Urology. 2002 Apr;59(4):532-7
11927308
J Urol. 2007 Aug;178(2):429-34
17561141
Curr Urol Rep. 2008 Jan;9(1):22-5
18366970
CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Jan-Feb;57(1):43-66
17237035
J Urol. 2008 Jan;179(1):20-7
17997455