Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Renal Mass Biopsy Improve Outcomes? Impact on Clinical Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Renal Mass Biopsy

  • 338 Accesses

Abstract

More frequent utilization of cross-sectional imaging has led to an increase in the incidental diagnosis and a subsequent rise in incidence of small renal masses. Historical biases and technical limitations have prevented renal mass biopsy (RMB) from becoming a universal part of routine patient evaluation at the time of diagnosis of a renal mass. Nevertheless, more recently, RMB is being more commonly utilized and offers real-world utility in risk-stratifying patients and appropriately matching them with an optimal treatment strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cooperberg MR, Mallin K, Ritchey J, Villalta JD, Carroll PR, Kane CJ. Decreasing size at diagnosis of stage 1 renal cell carcinoma: analysis from the National Cancer Data Base, 1993 to 2004. J Urol. 2008;179(6):2131–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shuch B, Amin A, Armstrong AJ, Eble JN, Ficarra V, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Understanding pathologic variants of renal cell carcinoma: distilling therapeutic opportunities from biologic complexity. Eur Urol. 2015;67(1):85–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ginzburg S, Tomaszewski JJ, Kutikov A. Focal ablation therapy for renal cancer in the era of active surveillance and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14(11):669–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Smaldone MC, Kutikov A, Egleston B, Simhan J, Canter DJ, Teper E, et al. Assessing performance trends in laparoscopic nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery for localized renal tumors. Urology. 2012;80(2):286–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson DC, Vukina J, Smith AB, Meyer AM, Wheeler SB, Kuo TM, et al. Preoperatively misclassified, surgically removed benign renal masses: a systematic review of surgical series and United States population level burden estimate. J Urol. 2015;193(1):30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, Zhou M, Novick AC, Campbell SC. Renal mass biopsy--a renaissance? J Urol. 2008;179(1):20–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):660–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1007–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel HD, Johnson MH, Pierorazio PM, Sozio SM, Sharma R, Iyoha E, 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):1340–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Martignoni G, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Brunelli M. Percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Histopathology. 2014;65(3):295–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Soares D, Ahmadi N, Crainic O, Boulas J. Papillary renal cell carcinoma seeding along a percutaneous biopsy tract. Case Rep Urol. 2015;2015:925254.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. J Urol. 2016;195(3):568–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Richard PO, Jewett MA, Tanguay S, Saarela O, Liu ZA, Pouliot F, et al. Safety, reliability and accuracy of small renal tumour biopsies: results from a multi-institution registry. BJU Int. 2017;119(4):543–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jason AE. Percutaneous biopsy facilitates modern treatment of renal masses. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41(4):617–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, Weaver AL, Blute ML. Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27(5):612–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tomaszewski JJ, Uzzo RG, Smaldone MC. Heterogeneity and renal mass biopsy: a review of its role and reliability. Cancer Biol Med. 2014;11(3):162–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Abel EJ, Carrasco A, Culp SH, Matin SF, Tamboli P, Tannir NM, et al. Limitations of preoperative biopsy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: comparison to surgical pathology in 405 cases. BJU Int. 2012;110(11):1742–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li G, Forest F, Feng G, Cuilleron M, Peoc’h M, Cottier M, et al. Fine needle aspiration biopsy of complex renal cystic tumors in the era of modern imaging modalities: where shall we go? Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol. 2014;36(4):231–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McIntosh AG, Ristau BT, Ruth K, Jennings R, Ross E, Smaldone MC, et al. Active surveillance for localized renal masses: tumor growth, delayed intervention rates, and >5-yr clinical outcomes. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):157–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Arnoux V, Fiard G, Descotes JL, Rambeaud JI, Long JA. Bilateral renal masses: pathologic concordance and impact of temporal presentation. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2012;64(4):287–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rothman J, Crispen PL, Wong YN, Al-Saleem T, Fox E, Uzzo RG. Pathologic concordance of sporadic synchronous bilateral renal masses. Urology. 2008;72(1):138–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Simhan J, Canter DJ, Sterious SN, Smaldone MC, Tsai KJ, Li T, et al. Pathological concordance and surgical outcomes of sporadic synchronous unilateral multifocal renal masses treated with partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(1):43–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leveridge MJ, Finelli A, Kachura JR, Evans A, Chung H, Shiff DA, et al. Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondiagnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):578–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Scanga LR, Maygarden SJ. Utility of fine-needle aspiration and core biopsy with touch preparation in the diagnosis of renal lesions. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(3):182–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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. Eur Urol. 2008;53(5):1003–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang CS, Choi E, Idrees MT, Chen S, Wu HH. Percutaneous biopsy of the renal mass: FNA or core needle biopsy? Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125(6):407–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Patel HD, Druskin SC, Rowe SP, Pierorazio PM, Gorin MA, Allaf ME. Surgical histopathology for suspected oncocytoma on renal mass biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2017;119(5):661–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ginzburg S, Uzzo R, Al-Saleem T, Dulaimi E, Walton J, Corcoran A, et al. Coexisting hybrid malignancy in a solitary sporadic solid benign renal mass: implications for treating patients following renal biopsy. J Urol. 2014;191(2):296–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Millet I, Doyon FC, Hoa D, Thuret R, Merigeaud S, Serre I, et al. Characterization of small solid renal lesions: can benign and malignant tumors be differentiated with CT? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(4):887–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Halverson SJ, Kunju LP, Bhalla R, Gadzinski AJ, Alderman M, Miller DC, et al. Accuracy of determining small renal mass management with risk stratified biopsies: confirmation by final pathology. J Urol. 2013;189(2):441–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wan F, Zhu Y, Han C, Xu Q, Wu J, Dai B, et al. Identification and validation of an eight-gene expression signature for predicting high Fuhrman grade renal cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2017;140(5):1199–208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Abel EJ, Heckman JE, Hinshaw L, Best S, Lubner M, Jarrard DF, et al. Multi-quadrant biopsy technique improves diagnostic ability in large heterogeneous renal masses. J Urol. 2015;194(4):886–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chopra S, Liu J, Alemozaffar M, Nichols PW, Aron M, Weisenberger DJ, et al. Improving needle biopsy accuracy in small renal mass using tumor-specific DNA methylation markers. Oncotarget. 2017;8(3):5439–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gowrishankar B, Cahill L, Arndt AE, Al-Ahmadie H, Lin O, Chadalavada K, et al. Subtyping of renal cortical neoplasms in fine needle aspiration biopsies using a decision tree based on genomic alterations detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization. BJU Int. 2014;114(6):881–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol. 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2217–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ristau BT, Kutikov A, Uzzo RG, Smaldone MC. Active surveillance for small renal masses: when less is more. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2(6):660–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Blute ML Jr, Drewry A, Abel EJ. Percutaneous biopsy for risk stratification of renal masses. Ther Adv Urol. 2015;7(5):265–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Uzzo RG, Haifler M, Bratslavsky G, Leibovich BC. Renal mass biopsy: always, sometimes, or never? Eur Urol. 2016;70(3):403–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Parker PA, Alba F, Fellman B, Urbauer DL, Li Y, Karam JA, et al. Illness uncertainty and quality of life of patients with small renal tumors undergoing watchful waiting: a 2-year prospective study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(6):1122–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pandharipande PV, Gervais DA, Hartman RI, Harisinghani MG, Feldman AS, Mueller PR, et al. Renal mass biopsy to guide treatment decisions for small incidental renal tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology. 2010;256(3):836–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Heilbrun ME, Yu J, Smith KJ, Dechet CB, Zagoria RJ, Roberts MS. The cost-effectiveness of immediate treatment, percutaneous biopsy and active surveillance for the diagnosis of the small solid renal mass: evidence from a Markov model. J Urol. 2012;187(1):39–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Faraj K, Dave CN, Patel K, Seifman B, Vartanian S, Frontera R, et al. A retrospective comparative outcomes and cost analysis of office based, ultrasound guided renal mass biopsy performed by urologists and standard hospital biopsies for small renal masses. Urol Pract. 2018;5(4):260–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Breau RH, Crispen PL, Jenkins SM, Blute ML, Leibovich BC. Treatment of patients with small renal masses: a survey of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 2011;185(2):407–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Weissleder R, Mahmood U. Molecular imaging. Radiology. 2001;219(2):316–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ho CL, Chen S, Ho KM, Chan WK, Leung YL, Cheng KC, et al. Dual-tracer PET/CT in renal angiomyolipoma and subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37(11):1075–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Meyer AR, Allaf ME, Rowe SP, Gorin MA. The role of molecular imaging in the characterization of renal masses. Curr Opin Urol. 2018;28(2):159–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kuo MD, Jamshidi N. Behind the numbers: decoding molecular phenotypes with radiogenomics--guiding principles and technical considerations. Radiology. 2014;270(2):320–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shinagare AB, Vikram R, Jaffe C, Akin O, Kirby J, Huang E, et al. Radiogenomics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: preliminary findings of the cancer genome atlas-renal cell carcinoma (TCGA-RCC) imaging research group. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(6):1684–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Jones KM, Solnes LB, Rowe SP, Gorin MA, Sheikhbahaei S, Fung G, et al. Use of quantitative SPECT/CT reconstruction in (99m)Tc-sestamibi imaging of patients with renal masses. Ann Nucl Med. 2018;32(2):87–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Gorin MA, Rowe SP, Baras AS, Solnes LB, Ball MW, Pierorazio PM, et al. Prospective evaluation of (99m)Tc-sestamibi SPECT/CT for the diagnosis of renal oncocytomas and hybrid oncocytic/chromophobe tumors. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):413–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Buijs M, Wagstaff PGK, de Bruin DM, Zondervan PJ, Savci-Heijink CD, van Delden OM, et al. An in-vivo prospective study of the diagnostic yield and accuracy of optical biopsy compared with conventional renal mass biopsy for the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma: the interim analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(6):978–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.002. pii: S2405-4569(17)30239-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Barwari K, de Bruin DM, Faber DJ, van Leeuwen TG, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP. Differentiation between normal renal tissue and renal tumours using functional optical coherence tomography: a phase I in vivo human study. BJU Int. 2012;110(8 Pt B):E415–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bensalah K, Fleureau J, Rolland D, Lavastre O, Rioux-Leclercq N, Guille F, et al. Raman spectroscopy: a novel experimental approach to evaluating renal tumours. Eur Urol. 2010;58(4):602–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Couapel JP, Senhadji L, Rioux-Leclercq N, Verhoest G, Lavastre O, de Crevoisier R, et al. Optical spectroscopy techniques can accurately distinguish benign and malignant renal tumours. BJU Int. 2013;111(6):865–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Haifler M, Pence I, Sun Y, Kutikov A, Uzzo RG, Mahadevan-Jansen A, et al. Discrimination of malignant and normal kidney tissue with short wave infrared dispersive Raman spectroscopy. J Biophotonics. 2018;11(6):e201700188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Montironi R, Cheng L, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A. Pathology and genetics: tumours of the urinary system and male genital system: clinical implications of the 4th edition of the WHO classification and beyond. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):120–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Salami SS, George AK, Udager AM. The genomics of renal cell carcinoma and its role in renal mass biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2018;28:383–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Morgan TM, Mehra R, Tiemeny P, Wolf JS, Wu S, Sangale Z, et al. A multigene signature based on cell cycle proliferation improves prediction of mortality within 5 yr of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2018;73(5):763–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Brian T. Kadow

  2. Department of Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA

    Jeffrey John Tomaszewski

  3. Urologic Oncology Service, Department of Urology, Shamir Medical Center, Tzrifin, Israel

    Miki Haifler

  4. Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Alexander Kutikov

Authors
  1. Brian T. Kadow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey John Tomaszewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miki Haifler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander Kutikov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian T. Kadow .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bethesda Center for Advanced Robotics, Bethesda Hospital East Bethesda Center for Advanced Robotics, Boynton Beach, FL, USA

    Raymond J. Leveillee

  2. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL, USA

    Merce Jorda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kadow, B.T., Tomaszewski, J.J., Haifler, M., Kutikov, A. (2020). Can Renal Mass Biopsy Improve Outcomes? Impact on Clinical Decision-Making. In: Leveillee, R., Jorda, M. (eds) Renal Mass Biopsy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36036-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36036-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36035-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36036-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation