title: Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of imaging-guided needle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150 cases.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Radiology, University of Torino, Facoltà San Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano (TO), Italy. andrea.veltri@unito.it
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Veltri
authors.forename: Irene
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Garetto
authors.forename: Irene
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Tosetti
authors.forename: Marco
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Busso
authors.forename: Alessandro
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Volpe
authors.forename: Donatella
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Pacchioni
authors.forename: Enrico
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Bollito
authors.forename: Mauro
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Papotti
mesh_terms: 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
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Oct;178(4 Pt 1):1184-8; discussion 1188
references.pmid: 17698122
references.citation: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 May;20(5):674-9
references.pmid: 19299170
references.citation: South Med J. 2002 Feb;95(2):212-7
references.pmid: 11846247
references.citation: Curr Opin Urol. 2009 Sep;19(5):447-53
references.pmid: 19571757
references.citation: Lancet. 2007 Dec 22;370(9605):2071-3
references.pmid: 18156012
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Aug;179(2):373-8
references.pmid: 12130435
references.citation: Am J Surg Pathol. 1982 Oct;6(7):655-63
references.pmid: 7180965
references.citation: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006 Oct;17(10):1563-70
references.pmid: 17056998
references.citation: BJU Int. 2007 Aug;100(2):287-90
references.pmid: 17617136
references.citation: BJU Int. 2005 May;95(7):1039-42
references.pmid: 15839927
references.citation: J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2333-7
references.pmid: 18930274
references.citation: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Jul;20(7 Suppl):S240-9
references.pmid: 19394868
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):1957-62
references.pmid: 17070218
references.citation: Radiology. 2000 Aug;216(2):506-10
references.pmid: 10924578
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):425-31
references.pmid: 16406965
references.citation: Urology. 1997 Jul;50(1):25-9
references.pmid: 9218014
references.citation: J Urol. 2008 Apr;179(4):1227-33; discussion 1233-4
references.pmid: 18280512
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):563-70
references.pmid: 17242269
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Mar;188(3):792-7
references.pmid: 17312070
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jun;188(6):1500-5
references.pmid: 17515368
references.citation: Eur J Cancer. 2008 Oct;44(15):2152-61
references.pmid: 18829302
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 May;171(5):1802-5
references.pmid: 15076280
references.citation: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008 Jul;19(7):973-9
references.pmid: 18589310
references.citation: Clin Radiol. 2004 Mar;59(3):262-7
references.pmid: 15037139
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Aug;178(2):379-86
references.pmid: 17561170
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jul;185(1):64-71
references.pmid: 15972400
references.citation: Urology. 2002 Apr;59(4):532-7
references.pmid: 11927308
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Aug;178(2):429-34
references.pmid: 17561141
references.citation: Curr Urol Rep. 2008 Jan;9(1):22-5
references.pmid: 18366970
references.citation: CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Jan-Feb;57(1):43-66
references.pmid: 17237035
references.citation: J Urol. 2008 Jan;179(1):20-7
references.pmid: 17997455