Korean J Urol.  2014 Sep;55(9):568-573. 10.4111/kju.2014.55.9.568.

Current Status of Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses

• Ha SB
• Kwak C

• KMID: 2069773
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.9.568

Abstract

Small renal masses (SRMs) are defined as radiologically enhancing renal masses of less than 4 cm in maximal diameter. The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has increased in recent years, which is mainly due to the rise in incidental detection of localized SRMs. However, the cancer-specific mortality rate is not increasing. This discrepancy may be dependent on the indolent nature of SRMs. About 20% of SRMs are benign, and smaller masses are likely to have pathologic characteristics of low Fuhrman grade and clear cell type. In addition, SRMs are increasingly detected in elderly patients who are likely to have comorbidities and are a high-risk group for active treatment like surgery. As the information about the nature of SRMs is improved and management options for SRMs are expanded, the current role of renal mass biopsy for SRMs is also expanding. Traditionally, renal mass biopsy has not been accepted as a standard diagnostic tool in the clinical scenario because of several issues about safety and accuracy. However, current series on SRM biopsy have reported high diagnostic accuracy with rare complications. Studies of modern SRM biopsy have reported diagnostic accuracy greater than 90% with very high specificity. Also, current series have shown very rare morbid cases caused by renal mass biopsy. Currently, renal biopsy of SRMs can be recommended in most cases except when patients have imaging or clinical characteristics indicative of pathology and in cases in which conservative management is not considered.

Keyword

Biopsy; Kidney neoplasms; Watchful waiting

MeSH Terms

Biopsy/adverse effects/methods
Carcinoma, Renal Cell/*pathology
Early Detection of Cancer/adverse effects/*methods
Humans
Incidental Findings
Kidney/*pathology
Kidney Neoplasms/*pathology

Reference

1. Israel GM, Bosniak MA. Renal imaging for diagnosis and staging of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am. 2003; 30:499–514.

2. Herts BR, Baker ME. The current role of percutaneous biopsy in the evaluation of renal masses. Semin Urol Oncol. 1995; 13:254–261.

3. 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; 98:1331–1334.

4. Moschella C. National Kidney Foundation develops practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease. JAAPA. 2003; 16:17–18.

5. Phe V, Yates DR, Renard-Penna R, Cussenot O, Roupret M. Is there a contemporary role for percutaneous needle biopsy in the era of small renal masses? BJU Int. 2012; 109:867–872.

6. 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; 179:2131–2135.

7. Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, Jewett MA. Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:624–634.

8. Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol. 2006; 175:425–431.

9. Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HC, Susani M, Waldert M, Seitz C, et al. Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameter. J Urol. 2006; 176:896–899.

10. 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):2217–2220.

11. Lane BR, Babineau D, Kattan MW, Novick AC, Gill IS, Zhou M, et al. A preoperative prognostic nomogram for solid enhancing renal tumors 7 cm or less amenable to partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2007; 178:429–434.

12. Nguyen MM, Gill IS. Effect of renal cancer size on the prevalence of metastasis at diagnosis and mortality. J Urol. 2009; 181:1020–1027. discussion 1027.

13. Eggener SE, Rubenstein JN, Smith ND, Nadler RB, Kontak J, Flanigan RC, et al. Renal tumors in young adults. J Urol. 2004; 171:106–110.

14. Snyder ME, Bach A, Kattan MW, Raj GV, Reuter VE, Russo P. Incidence of benign lesions for clinically localized renal masses smaller than 7 cm in radiological diameter: influence of sex. J Urol. 2006; 176(6 Pt 1):2391–2395. discussion 2395-6.

15. Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC, Hora M, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol. 2010; 58:398–406.

16. Hall WH, McGahan JP, Link DP, deVere White RW. Combined embolization and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of a solid renal tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174:1592–1594.

17. Arima K, Yamakado K, Kinbara H, Nakatsuka A, Takeda K, Sugimura Y. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation with transarterial embolization is useful for treatment of stage 1 renal cell carcinoma with surgical risk: results at 2-year mean follow up. Int J Urol. 2007; 14:585–590. discussion 590.

18. Yamakado K, Nakatsuka A, Kobayashi S, Akeboshi M, Takaki H, Kariya Z, et al. Radiofrequency ablation combined with renal arterial embolization for the treatment of unresectable renal cell carcinoma larger than 3.5 cm: initial experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006; 29:389–394.

19. Nakasone Y, Kawanaka K, Ikeda O, Tamura Y, Yamashita Y. Sequential combination treatment (arterial embolization and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation) of inoperable renal cell carcinoma: single-center pilot study. Acta Radiol. 2012; 53:410–414.

20. Volpe A, Cadeddu JA, Cestari A, Gill IS, Jewett MA, Joniau S, et al. Contemporary management of small renal masses. Eur Urol. 2011; 60:501–515.

21. Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, Zhou M, Novick AC, Campbell SC. Renal mass biopsy: a renaissance? J Urol. 2008; 179:20–27.

22. Neuzillet Y, Lechevallier E, Andre M, Daniel L, Coulange C. Accuracy and clinical role of fine needle percutaneous biopsy with computerized tomography guidance of small (less than 4.0 cm) renal masses. J Urol. 2004; 171:1802–1805.

23. Rybikowski S, Tomatis L, Arroua F, Ragni E, Rossi D, Bastide C. Value of percutaneous kidney biopsy in the management of solid renal tumours less or equal to 4 cm. Prog Urol. 2008; 18:337–343.

24. Thuillier C, Long JA, Lapouge O, Pasquier D, Terrier N, Bocqueraz F, et al. Value of percutaneous biopsy for solid renal tumours less than 4 cm in diameter based on a series of 53 cases. Prog Urol. 2008; 18:435–439.

25. Wang R, Wolf JS Jr, Wood DP Jr, Higgins EJ, Hafez KS. Accuracy of percutaneous core biopsy in management of small renal masses. Urology. 2009; 73:586–590. discussion 590-1.

26. Shannon BA, Cohen RJ, de Bruto H, Davies RJ. The value of preoperative needle core biopsy for diagnosing benign lesions among small, incidentally detected renal masses. J Urol. 2008; 180:1257–1261. discussion 1261.

27. Caoili EM, Bude RO, Higgins EJ, Hoff DL, Nghiem HV. Evaluation of sonographically guided percutaneous core biopsy of renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179:373–378.

28. Rybicki FJ, Shu KM, Cibas ES, Fielding JR, vanSonnenberg E, Silverman SG. Percutaneous biopsy of renal masses: sensitivity and negative predictive value stratified by clinical setting and size of masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180:1281–1287.

29. 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; 178:379–386.

30. Tsivian M, Rampersaud EN Jr, del Pilar Laguna Pes M, Joniau S, Leveillee RJ, Shingleton WB, et al. Small renal mass biopsy: how, what and when: report from an international consensus panel. BJU Int. 2014; 113:854–863.

31. Lechevallier E, Andre M, Barriol D, Daniel L, Eghazarian C, De Fromont M, et al. Fine-needle percutaneous biopsy of renal masses with helical CT guidance. Radiology. 2000; 216:506–510.

32. 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; 60:578–584.

33. Volpe A, Mattar K, Finelli A, Kachura JR, Evans AJ, Geddie WR, et al. Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience. J Urol. 2008; 180:2333–2337.

34. Laguna MP, Kummerlin I, Rioja J, de la Rosette JJ. Biopsy of a renal mass: where are we now? Curr Opin Urol. 2009; 19:447–453.

35. Barwari K, Beemster PW, Hew MN, Wijkstra H, de la Rosette J, Laguna MP. Are there parameters that predict a nondiagnostic biopsy outcome taken during laparoscopic-assisted cryoablation of small renal tumors? J Endourol. 2011; 25:1463–1468.

36. Menogue SR, O'Brien BA, Brown AL, Cohen RJ. Percutaneous core biopsy of small renal mass lesions: a diagnostic tool to better stratify patients for surgical intervention. BJU Int. 2013; 111(4 Pt B):E146–E151.

37. Blumenfeld AJ, Guru K, Fuchs GJ, Kim HL. Percutaneous biopsy of renal cell carcinoma underestimates nuclear grade. Urology. 2010; 76:610–613.

38. Lebret T, Poulain JE, Molinie V, Herve JM, Denoux Y, Guth A, et al. Percutaneous core biopsy for renal masses: indications, accuracy and results. J Urol. 2007; 178(4 Pt 1):1184–1188. discussion 1188.

39. Barwari K, Kummerlin IP, ten Kate FJ, Algaba F, Trias I, Wijkstra H, et al. What is the added value of combined core biopsy and fine needle aspiration in the diagnostic process of renal tumours? World J Urol. 2013; 31:823–827.

40. Schieven LW, Smedts F, Hopman AH, van der Wijk J, Nijman RJ, de Jong IJ. Fine needle aspiration using improved agar microbiopsy is highly concordant with renal mass final diagnosis and subclassification. J Urol. 2009; 182:2590–2593.

41. Volpe A, Finelli A, Gill IS, Jewett MA, Martignoni G, Polascik TJ, et al. Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:491–504.

42. Ralls PW, Barakos JA, Kaptein EM, Friedman PE, Fouladian G, Boswell WD, et al. Renal biopsy-related hemorrhage: frequency and comparison of CT and sonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1987; 11:1031–1034.

43. Silverman SG, Gan YU, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Cibas ES. Renal masses in the adult patient: the role of percutaneous biopsy. Radiology. 2006; 240:6–22.

44. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, et al. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol. 2009; 182:1271–1279.

45. Margulis V, Matsumoto ED, Lindberg G, Tunc L, Taylor G, Sagalowsky AI, et al. Acute histologic effects of temperature-based radiofrequency ablation on renal tumor pathologic interpretation. Urology. 2004; 64:660–663.

46. Truesdale MD, Mues AC, Sartori S, Casazza CN, Hruby GW, Harik LR, et al. Comparison of two core biopsy techniques before and after laparoscopic cryoablation of small renal cortical neoplasms. JSLS. 2011; 15:509–516.

47. Chen VH, Mayes JM, Madden JF, Stein AJ, Mouraviev V, Polascik TJ. The effect of cryoablation on the histologic interpretation of intraoperative biopsy of small clear cell renal carcinoma and renal oncocytoma. J Endourol. 2008; 22:1617–1621.

48. Volpe A, Jewett MA. The role of surveillance for small renal masses. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007; 4:2–3.

49. Jewett MA, Mattar K, Basiuk J, Morash CG, Pautler SE, Siemens DR, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol. 2011; 60:39–44.