Renal tumor biopsy – indications, technique, results
Authors:
Jiří Kolář 1; Tomáš Pitra 1; Kristýna Pivovarčíková 2; Ivan Trávníček 1; František Lepič 3; Ondřej Hes 2; Milan Hora 1
Authors place of work:
Urologická klinika LF UK a FN Plzeň
1; Šiklův ústav patologie LF UK a FN Plzeň
2; Klinika zobrazovacích metod LF UK a FN Plzeň
3
Published in the journal:
Ces Urol 2020; 24(2): 113-125
Category:
Originální práce
Summary
Aim: To evaluate kidney biopsies performed at our department and to compare the data with the literature.
Material and methods: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent renal tumor biopsy during the years 2007–2019.
Results: During the time period I/2017–XII/2019, we performed renal tumor biopsy on 200 patients at our department – 128 men (64.0 %) and 72 women (36.0 %). The average age of the patients was 64.8 years (34–85 years). Most of the biopsies were performed under CT guidance (n = 192; 96.0 %), a minority of the biopsies performed under ultrasonography guidance (n = 8; 4.0 %). The most common indication for the kidney biopsy was histological verification in metastatic disease before the beginning of oncologic treatment (n = 162; 81.0 %), the histological verification of unclear lesions (n = 32; 16.0 %) and biopsy prior to radiofrequency ablation (n = 6; 3.0 %). The initial biopsies were diagnostic in 165 cases (82.5 %). The most common histological findings were clear cell renal cell carcinoma (n = 107; 53.5 %), papillary renal cell carcinoma (n = 19; 9.5 %), urothelial carcinoma (n = 15; 7.5 %) and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (n = 3; 1.5 %). The remainder of histological findings were collected from 21 patients (10.5 %). Non-diagnostic were 35 histological samples (17.5 %); re-biopsy was performed in 17 cases from which 16 were positive. In the remaining 18 cases biopsy was not performed again (due to the deterioration of patient's health (n = 6), due to re-biopsy being refused by the pa‑ tient (n = 2), due to the absence of suspicion for the malignant tumor (n = 4) and finally, 6 of the patients underwent surgery and had the histological examination performed from the removed tissue). The most serious complication was in the form of perirenal hematoma which required blood transfusion (Clavien 2).
Conclusion: At our department, we performed the biopsy of the kidney on 200 patients during 2007–2019, under CT guidance in the vast majority of cases. The most common indication was histological verification preceding oncological treatment and the most common finding was clear renal carcinoma.
Keywords:
Biopsy – kidney – carcinoma – diagnosis – histology
Zdroje
1. Capitanio U, Bensalah K, Bex A, et al. Epidemiology of Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur Urol 2019; 75(1): 74–84.
2. Capitanio U, Montorsi F. Renal cancer. Lancet 2016; 387(10021): 894–906.
3. Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, et al. Renal mass biopsy – a renaissance? J Urol 2008; 179(1): 20–27.
4. Golan S, Lotan P, Tapiero S, et al. Diagnostic Needle Biopsies in Renal Masses: Patient and Physician Perspectives. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4(5): 749–753.
5. Leppert JT, Hanley J, Wagner TH, et al. Utilization of renal mass biopsy in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2014; 83(4): 774–779.
6. Ordon M, Landman J. Renal mass biopsy: „just do it“. J Urol 2013; 190(5): 1638–1640.
7. Richard PO, Jewett MA, Bhatt JR, et al. Renal Tumor Biopsy for Small Renal Masses: A Single‑center 13-year Experience. Eur Urol 2015; 68(6): 1007–1013.
8. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu‑Ghanem Y, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2019 Update. Eur Urol 2019; 75(5): 799–810.
9. Patel HD, Druskin SC, Rowe SP, et al. Surgical histopathology for suspected oncocytoma on renal mass biopsy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. BJU Int 2017; 119(5): 661–666.
10. Haifler M, Kutikov A. Update on Renal Mass Biopsy. Curr Urol Rep 2017; 18(4): 28.
11. Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Martignoni G, et al. Percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Histopathology 2014; 65(3): 295–308.
12. Volpe A, Finelli A, Gill IS, et al. Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours. Eur Urol 2012; 62(3): 491–504.
13. Tomaszewski JJ, Uzzo RG, Smaldone MC. Heterogeneity and renal mass biopsy: a review of its role and reliability. Cancer Biol Med 2014; 11(3): 162–172.
14. Chang DT, Sur H, Lozinskiy M, Wallace DM. Needle tract seeding following percutaneous biopsy of renal cell carcinoma. Korean J Urol 2015; 56(9): 666–669.
15. Soares D, Ahmadi N, Crainic O, Boulas J. Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma Seeding along a Percutaneous Biopsy Tract. Case Rep Urol 2015; 2015: 925254.
16. Viswanathan A, Ingimarsson JP, Seigne JD, Schned AR. A single‑centre experience with tumour tract seeding associated with needle manipulation of renal cell carcinomas. Can Urol Assoc J 2015; 9(11–12): E890–E893.
17. Laird A, Couper CH, Glancy S, O´Donnell M, Riddick AC. Renal cell carcinoma needle biopsy: sowing the seed for later complications? BMJ Case Rep 2014; 2014.
18. Macklin PS, Sullivan ME, Tapping CR, et al. Tumour Seeding in the Tract of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy: A Report on Seven Cases from a UK Tertiary Referral Centre. Eur Urol 2019; 75(5): 861–867.
19. Hora M, Philip S, Macklin, et al. Tumour Seeding in the Tract of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy: A Report on Seven Cases from a UK Tertiary Referral Centre. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 861–867. Eur Urol 2019; 76(4): e96.
20. Procházková K, Mírka H, Trávníček I, et al. Cystic Appearance on Imaging Methods (Bosniak III‑IV) in Histologically Confirmed Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma is Mainly Characteristic of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma Type 1 and Might Predict a Relatively Indolent Behavior of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma. Urol Int 2018; 101(4): 409–416.
21. Patel HD, Johnson MH, Pierorazio PM, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy and Risks of Biopsy in the Diagnosis of a Renal Mass Suspicious for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review of the Literature. J Urol 2016; 195(5): 1340–1347.
22. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, et al. Systematic Review and Meta‑analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy. Eur Urol 2016; 69(4): 660–673.
23. Kockelbergh R, Griffiths L. Renal Tumour Biopsy – A New Standard of Care? Eur Urol 2016; 69(4): 674–675.
24. Jeon HG, Seo SI, et al. Percutaneous Kidney Biopsy for a Small Renal Mass: A Critical Appraisal of Re‑ sults. J Urol 2016; 195(3): 568–573.
25. Jason Abel E. Percutaneous biopsy facilitates modern treatment of renal masses. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016; 41(4): 617–619.
26. Ball MW, Bezerra SM, Gorin MA, et al. Grade heterogeneity in small renal masses: potential implications for renal mass biopsy. J Urol 2015; 193(1): 36–40.
27. Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Uzzo RG, et al. Renal Mass Biopsy: Always, Sometimes, or Never? Eur Urol 2016; 70(3): 403–406.
28. Rioux‑Leclercq N, Karakiewicz PI, Trinh QD, et al. Prognostic ability of simplified nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2007; 109(5): 868–874.
29. Richard PO, Jewett MA, Tanguay S, et al. Safety, reliability and accuracy of small renal tumour biopsies: results from a multi‑institution registry. BJU Int 2017; 119(4): 543–549.
30. Millet I, Curros F, Serre I, Taourel P, Thuret R. Can renal biopsy accurately predict histological subtype and Fuhrman grade of renal cell carcinoma? J Urol 2012; 188(5): 1690–1694.
31. Kouřilová K, Fabišovský M, Dvořáčková J, et al. Výsledky biopsie renálních tumorů na urologickém oddělení FN Ostrava. Ces Urol 2013; 17(3): 199–203.
32. Leveridge MJ, Finelli A, Kachura JR, et al. Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondia‑ gnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 2011; 60(3): 578–584.
33. Volpe A, Mattar K, Finelli A, et al. Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience. J Urol 2008; 180(6): 2333–2337.
34. Veltri A, Garetto I, Tosetti I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of imaging‑guided needle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150 cases. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(2): 393–401.
35. Abel EJ, Heckman JE, Hinshaw L, et al. Multi‑Quadrant Biopsy Technique Improves Diagnostic Ability in Large Heterogeneous Renal Masses. J Urol 2015; 194(4): 886–891.
36. Méjean A, Ravaud A, Thezenas S, et al. Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal‑Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018; 379(5): 417–427.
Štítky
Dětská urologie Nefrologie UrologieČlánek vyšel v časopise
Česká urologie
2020 Číslo 2
- Prevence opakovaných infekcí močových cest s využitím přípravku Uro-Vaxom
- Vysoká hladina PSA a její rychlý nárůst jsou nepříznivými prognostickými faktory u karcinomu prostaty
- Význam monitorování hladiny anti-Xa u pacientů užívajících profylaktické dávky enoxaparinu − série kazuistik
- Referenční intervaly Indexu zdraví prostaty (PHI) u zdravých mužů
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Biopsie nádorů ledvin – indikace, provedení, výsledky
- Vyšetření cirkulujících nádorových buněk u karcinomu ledviny
- Objemný cystický lymfangiom levé nadledviny – diferenciálně diagnostický omyl
- Náš přístup k diagnostice a léčbě nehmatného varlete