Abstract
Objective
To assess preoperative renal tumor biopsy (RTB) accuracy.
Materials and methods
As part of the prospective NEPHRON study, data from 1,237 renal tumors were collected, including the use and results of RTB and final histology following nephrectomy. During the 6 months period of inclusion, 130 preoperative biopsies were performed. We used the kappa coefficient of the McNemar test to determine the concordance between the biopsy and the nephrectomy specimen (NS) regarding four parameters: malignant/benign status, histological subtype, Fuhrman grade and microscopic necrosis.
Results
Preoperative biopsies were performed in 9.7 and 11.4 % of the 667 radical and 570 partial nephrectomies, respectively. Tumor biopsy was inconclusive in 7.7 % of the cases. In 117 cases, a comparison between RTB and NS was available. Benign tumors accounted for three (2.6 %) and five (4.3 %) of the RTB and NS, respectively (κ = 0.769, good). With seven (6 %) discordant results in terms of histological subtype characterization between RTB and final pathology, RTB accuracy was considered excellent (κ = 0.882). In 33 cases (31.7 %), Fuhrman grade was underestimated at biopsy resulting in an intermediate concordance level (κ = 0.498). Tumor microscopic necrosis was identified in 12 RTB (10.4 %) versus 33 NS (28.4 %) (κ = 0.357, poor).
Conclusions
RTB provides good to excellent diagnostic performance for discriminating malignancy and tumor histological subtype. However, its performance is intermediate or even poor when considering prognostic criteria like Fuhrman grade or microscopic necrosis. Thus, this possible inaccuracy should be taken into consideration when using RTB for accurate guidance of treatment strategy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck BK (2006) Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 20(98):1331–1334
Motzer RJ (2011) New perspectives on the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an introduction and historical overview. Oncologist 16(Suppl 2):1–3
Wang R, Wolf JS Jr, Wood DP Jr, Higgins EJ, Hafez KS (2009) Accuracy of percutaneous core biopsy in management of small renal masses. Urology 73:586–590 discussion 90−91
Menogue SR, O’Brien BA, Brown AL, Cohen RJ (2013) Percutaneous core biopsy of small renal mass lesions: a diagnostic tool to better stratify patients for surgical intervention. BJU Int 111:E146–E151
Somani BK, Nabi G, Thorpe P, N’Dow J, Swami S, McClinton S (2007) Image-guided biopsy-diagnosed renal cell carcinoma: critical appraisal of technique and long-term follow-up. Eur Urol 51:1289–1295 discussion 96–97
Vasudevan A, Davies RJ, Shannon BA, Cohen RJ (2006) Incidental renal tumours: the frequency of benign lesions and the role of preoperative core biopsy. BJU Int 97:946–949
Volpe A, Mattar K, Finelli A et al (2008) Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience. J Urol 180:2333–2337
Shannon BA, Cohen RJ, de Bruto H, Davies RJ (2008) The value of preoperative needle core biopsy for diagnosing benign lesions among small, incidentally detected renal masses. J Urol 180:1257–1261 discussion 61
Neuzillet Y, Lechevallier E, Andre M, Daniel L, Coulange C (2004) Accuracy and clinical role of fine needle percutaneous biopsy with computerized tomography guidance of small (less than 4.0 cm) renal masses. J Urol 171:1802–1805
Millet I, Curros F, Serre I, Taourel P, Thuret R (2012) Can renal biopsy accurately predict histological subtype and Fuhrman grade of renal cell carcinoma? J Urol 188:1690–1694
Leveridge MJ, Finelli A, Kachura JR et al (2011) Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondiagnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 60:578–584
Lebret T, Poulain JE, Molinie V et al (2007) Percutaneous core biopsy for renal masses: indications, accuracy and results. J Urol 178:1184–1188 discussion 8
Abel EJ, Culp SH, Matin SF et al (2010) Percutaneous biopsy of primary tumor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma to predict high risk pathological features: comparison with nephrectomy assessment. J Urol 184:1877–1881
Abel EJ, Carrasco A, Culp SH et al (2012) Limitations of preoperative biopsy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: comparison to surgical pathology in 405 cases. BJU Int 110:1742–1746
Blumenfeld AJ, Guru K, Fuchs GJ, Kim HL (2010) Percutaneous biopsy of renal cell carcinoma underestimates nuclear grade. Urology 76:610–613
Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C (eds) (2009) UICC: TNM classification of malignant tumors, 7th edn. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell
Pignot G, Mejean A, Bernhard JC et al (2014) The use of partial nephrectomy: results from a contemporary national prospective multicenter study. World J Urol (Epub ahead of print)
Eble J, Sauter G, Epstein J, Sesterhenn IA (eds) (2004) World health organization classification of tumours. In: Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. IARCC Press, Lyon
Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6:655–663
Jr Landis, Gg Koch (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
Barwari K, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP (2012) The penetration of renal mass biopsy in daily practice: a survey among urologists. J Endourol 26:737–747
Simhan J, Canter DJ, Sterious SN et al (2013) Pathological concordance and surgical outcomes of sporadic synchronous unilateral multifocal renal masses treated with partial nephrectomy. J Urol 189:43–47
Fendler JP (2003) Non-radiological investigation of cystic renal tumours. Prog Urol 13:1402–1405
Patel N, Cranston D, Akhtar MZ et al (2012) Active surveillance of small renal masses offers short-term oncological efficacy equivalent to radical and partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 110:1270–1275
Delahunt B, McKenney JK, Lohse CM et al (2013) A novel grading system for clear cell renal cell carcinoma incorporating tumor necrosis. Am J Surg Pathol 37:311–322
Zigeuner R, Hutterer G, Chromecki T et al (2010) External validation of the Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score for clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in a single European centre applying routine pathology. Eur Urol 57:102–109
Delahunt B, Cheville JC, Martignoni G et al (2013) The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for renal cell carcinoma and other prognostic parameters. Am J Surg Pathol 37(10):1490–1504
Algaba F, Akaza H, Lopez-Beltran A et al (2011) Current pathology keys of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 60:634–643
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Baxter for financial and logistical support, all the contributors to the NEPHRON study and Raj Satkunasivam, MD, for English review.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competiting interests.
Ethical standard
The study and database were approved by the CNOM (Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins) and the CNIL (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés). All patients received oral information with exhaustive written notice about the objectives of the study and the potential use of confidential clinical data for statistical analysis and publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Additional information
J. C. Bernhard and P. Bigot have contributed equally to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bernhard, J.C., Bigot, P., Pignot, G. et al. The accuracy of renal tumor biopsy: analysis from a national prospective study. World J Urol 33, 1205–1211 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1432-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1432-0