Office-Based Percutaneous Renal Biopsy

  • Roshan M. PatelEmail author
  • Zhamshid Okhunov
  • Devaraju Kanmaniraja
  • Chandana Lall
  • Jaime Landman


Renal biopsy is an essential tool that is underutilized in the management of T1a small renal masses. Image-guided biopsy has the potential to establish a diagnosis, assess severity, and determine prognosis for patients with a renal mass that would otherwise be subjected to surgical intervention. Ultrasound technology is familiar to urologists, as it is widely applied to prostate biopsy. In a select group of patients, office-based ultrasound-guided renal mass biopsy has shown to be a safe and cost-effective alternative to hospital-based procedures. In this chapter, we will discuss patient selection, biopsy technique, complications, and outcomes of percutaneous office-based renal biopsy.


Renal biopsy Ultrasound Renal cell carcinoma Facilitated ultrasound targeting Office procedures 


  1. 1.
    Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck BK. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(18):1331–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Montironi R, Kirkali Z. 2004 WHO classification of the renal tumors of the adults. Eur Urol. 2006;49(5):798–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, Bass EB, Cadeddu JA, Chang A, et al. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2017;198:520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Culkin DJ, Exaire EJ, Green D, Soloway MS, Gross AJ, Desai MR, et al. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in urological practice: ICUD/AUA review paper. J Urol. 2014;192(4):1026–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen V, Menhadji A, Okhunov Z, Chu R, Cho J, Billingsley J, et al. Technique for office-based, ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy of renal cortical neoplasms. Videourology. 2013;27(5).
  11. 11.
    Volpe A, Kachura JR, Geddie WR, Evans AJ, Gharajeh A, Saravanan A, et al. Techniques, safety and accuracy of sampling of renal tumors by fine needle aspiration and core biopsy. J Urol. 2007;178(2):379–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prasad N, Kumar S, Manjunath R, Bhadauria D, Kaul A, Sharma RK, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided percutaneous renal biopsy with needle guide by nephrologists decreases post-biopsy complications. Clin Kidney J. 2015;8(2):151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menhadji A, Nguyen V, Cho J, Chu R, Osann K, Bucur P, et al. In vitro comparison of a novel facilitated ultrasound targeting technology vs standard technique for percutaneous renal biopsy. Urology. 2013;82(3):734–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim JW, Shin SS. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy of abdominal viscera: tips to ensure safe and effective biopsy. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(2):309–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lipnik AJ, Brown DB. Image-guided percutaneous abdominal mass biopsy: technical and clinical considerations. Radiol Clin North Am. 2015;53(5):1049–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel MD, Phillips CJ, Young SW, Kriegshauser JS, Chen F, Eversman WG, et al. US-guided renal transplant biopsy: efficacy of a cortical tangential approach. Radiology. 2010;256(1):290–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cui S, Heller HT, Waikar SS, McMahon GM. Needle size and the risk of kidney biopsy bleeding complications. Kidney Int Rep. 2016;1(4):324–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bisceglia M, Matalon TA, Silver B. The pump maneuver: an atraumatic adjunct to enhance US needle tip localization. Radiology. 1990;176(3):867–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim KW, Kim MJ, Kim HC, Park SH, Kim SY, Park MS, et al. Value of “patent track” sign on Doppler sonography after percutaneous liver biopsy in detection of postbiopsy bleeding: a prospective study in 352 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(1):109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGahan JP, Wright L, Brock J. Occurrence and value of the color Doppler “line sign” after radiofrequency ablation of solid abdominal organs. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(11):1491–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Menhadji AD, Nguyen V, Okhunov Z, Bucur P, Chu WH, Cho J, et al. Technique for office-based, ultrasonography-guided percutaneous biopsy of renal cortical neoplasms using a novel transducer for facilitated ultrasound targeting. BJU Int. 2016;117(6):948–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prince J, Bultman E, Hinshaw L, Drewry A, Blute M, Best S, et al. Patient and tumor characteristics can predict nondiagnostic renal mass biopsy findings. J Urol. 2015;193(6):1899–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Patel HD, Sozio SM, Sharma R, Iyoha E, et al. Management of renal masses and localized renal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2016;196(4):989–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eiro M, Katoh T, Watanabe T. Risk factors for bleeding complications in percutaneous renal biopsy. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2005;9(1):40–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Andersen MF, Norus TP. Tumor seeding with renal cell carcinoma after renal biopsy. Urol Case Rep. 2016;9:43–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dutta R, Okhunov Z, Vernez SL, Kaler K, Gulati AT, Youssef RF, et al. Cost comparisons between different techniques of percutaneous renal biopsy for small renal masses. J Endourol. 2016;30(Suppl 1):S28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roshan M. Patel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zhamshid Okhunov
    • 1
  • Devaraju Kanmaniraja
    • 2
  • Chandana Lall
    • 3
  • Jaime Landman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of California, IrvineOrangeUSA
  2. 2.Abdominal Imaging, Department of RadiologyMontefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California, IrvineOrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations