Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Renal Mass Biopsy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Diagnosis and Surgical Management of Renal Tumors

  • 742 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter we address the contemporary issues surrounding the use of percutaneous renal mass biopsy. We review current opinions surrounding the appropriate indications for renal mass biopsy as dictated by both expert opinion and clinical consensus guidelines. We then delve into the technical aspects of percutaneous renal mass biopsy. The diagnostic accuracy and utility of percutaneous renal mass biopsy results are then explored by reviewing a number of large, contemporary series, and meta-analyses. We then review the potential complications associated with percutaneous renal mass biopsy and how to best minimize their occurrence. Lastly, we review the economic implications of percutaneous renal mass biopsy when utilized as part of the diagnosis and management of the small renal mass.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
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. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30. Epub 2017/01/06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, Fraumeni JF Jr. Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA. 1999;281(17):1628–31. Epub 1999/05/11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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(18):1331–4. Epub 2006/09/21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Levi F, Ferlay J, Galeone C, Lucchini F, Negri E, Boyle P, et al. The changing pattern of kidney cancer incidence and mortality in Europe. BJU Int. 2008;101(8):949–58. Epub 2008/02/05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. King SC, Pollack LA, Li J, King JB, Master VA. Continued increase in incidence of renal cell carcinoma, especially in young patients and high grade disease: United States 2001 to 2010. J Urol. 2014;191(6):1665–70. Epub 2014/01/16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. O'Connor SD, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Oliva MR, Silverman SG. Incidental finding of renal masses at unenhanced CT: prevalence and analysis of features for guiding management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):139–45. Epub 2011/06/28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Volpe A, Panzarella T, Rendon RA, Haider MA, Kondylis FI, Jewett MA. The natural history of incidentally detected small renal masses. Cancer. 2004;100(4):738–45. Epub 2004/02/11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guethmundsson E, Hellborg H, Lundstam S, Erikson S, Ljungberg B. Metastatic potential in renal cell carcinomas </=7 cm: Swedish kidney cancer quality register data. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):975–82. Epub 2011/07/12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, Jewett MA. Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):624–34. Epub 2010/02/19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):2217–20. Epub 2003/11/25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. Epub 2014/07/30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leppert JT, Hanley J, Wagner TH, Chung BI, Srinivas S, Chertow GM, et al. Utilization of renal mass biopsy in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2014;83(4):774–9. Epub 2014/02/18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barwari K, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP. The penetration of renal mass biopsy in daily practice: a survey among urologists. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):737–47. Epub 2011/12/29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Silverman SG, Gan YU, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Cibas ES. Renal masses in the adult patient: the role of percutaneous biopsy. Radiology. 2006;240(1):6–22. Epub 2006/05/20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(5):1281–7. Epub 2003/04/22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosenfield AT, Glickman MG, Taylor KJ, Crade M, Hodson J. Acute focal bacterial nephritis (acute lobar nephronia). Radiology. 1979;132(3):553–61. Epub 1979/09/01

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Ball MW, Gorin MA, Trock BJ, Chang P, et al. Five-year analysis of a multi-institutional prospective clinical trial of delayed intervention and surveillance for small renal masses: the DISSRM registry. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):408–15. Epub 2015/02/24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Capitanio U, Volpe A. Renal tumor biopsy: more dogma belied. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1014–5. Epub 2015/05/26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. Epub 2016/04/18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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. Epub 2013/02/20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kockelbergh R, Griffiths L. Renal tumour biopsy–a new standard of care? Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):674–5. Epub 2015/10/03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rakowski SK, Winterkorn EB, Paul E, Steele DJ, Halpern EF, Thiele EA. Renal manifestations of tuberous sclerosis complex: incidence, prognosis, and predictive factors. Kidney Int. 2006;70(10):1777–82. Epub 2006/09/28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(3):520–9. Epub 2017/05/10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Agarwal N, Bhayani S, Bro WP, Chang SS, et al. Kidney cancer, version 2.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(6):804–34. Epub 2017/06/10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):913–24. Epub 2015/01/27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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. Epub 2016/12/28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Silverman SG, Collick BD, Figueira MR, Khorasani R, Adams DF, Newman RW, et al. Interactive MR-guided biopsy in an open-configuration MR imaging system. Radiology. 1995;197(1):175–81. Epub 1995/10/01

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Uppot RN, Harisinghani MG, Gervais DA. Imaging-guided percutaneous renal biopsy: rationale and approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(6):1443–9. Epub 2010/05/22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Breda A, Treat EG, Haft-Candell L, Leppert JT, Harper JD, Said J, et al. Comparison of accuracy of 14-, 18- and 20-G needles in ex-vivo renal mass biopsy: a prospective, blinded study. BJU Int. 2010;105(7):940–5. Epub 2009/11/06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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. Epub 2013/12/20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yang CS, Choi E, Idrees MT, Chen S, Wu HH. Percutaneous biopsy of the renal mass: FNA or core needle biopsy? Cancer. 2017;125(6):407–15. Epub 2017/03/24

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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(4):823–7. Epub 2011/06/01

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Babaei Jandaghi A, Lebady M, Zamani AA, Heidarzadeh A, Monfared A, Pourghorban R. A randomised clinical trial to compare coaxial and noncoaxial techniques in percutaneous core needle biopsy of renal parenchyma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017;40(1):106–11. Epub 2016/10/04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hobbs DJ, Zhou M, Campbell SC, Aydin H, Weight CJ, Lane BR. The impact of location and number of cores on the diagnostic accuracy of renal mass biopsy: an ex vivo study. World J Urol. 2013;31(5):1159–64. Epub 2012/04/25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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. Epub 2015/04/04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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. Epub 2016/02/24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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. Epub 2011/06/28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bernhard JC, Bigot P, Pignot G, Baumert H, Zini L, Lang H, et al. The accuracy of renal tumor biopsy: analysis from a national prospective study. World J Urol. 2015;33(8):1205–11. Epub 2014/11/07

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Salem S, Ponsky LE, Abouassaly R, Cherullo EE, Isariyawongse JP, Maclennan GT, et al. Image-guided biopsy of small renal masses in the era of ablative therapies. Int J Urol. 2013;20(6):580–4. Epub 2012/11/30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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. Epub 2015/04/23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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  Google Scholar 

  42. 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. Epub 2014/12/17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Feldman AS, Deshmukh SM, Dhyani M, Barrisford G, Rodriguez D, McGovern FJ, et al. Proposal of an algorithm for utilization of percutaneous renal mass biopsy based on the results of 1000 case series. BJU Int. 2013;112:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 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. Epub 2007/12/07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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. Epub 2015/09/02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lefaucheur C, Nochy D, Bariety J. Renal biopsy: procedures, contraindications, complications. Nephrol Ther. 2009;5(4):331–9. Epub 2009/04/07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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(3):491–504. Epub 2012/05/29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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 = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada. 2015;9(11–12):E890–3. Epub 2016/02/03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Corapi KM, Chen JL, Balk EM, Gordon CE. Bleeding complications of native kidney biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(1):62–73. Epub 2012/04/28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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(6):1031–4. Epub 1987/11/01

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Whittier WL, Korbet SM. Timing of complications in percutaneous renal biopsy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15(1):142–7. Epub 2003/12/25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hopper KD, Yakes WF. The posterior intercostal approach for percutaneous renal procedures: risk of puncturing the lung, spleen, and liver as determined by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154(1):115–7. Epub 1990/01/01

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ajib KM, Matta IF, Zgheib JT, Jabbour ME. Non-angled intercostal percutaneous access under full expiration: safety is not an issue anymore. J Endourol. 2017. Epub 2017/05/26;31:736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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. Epub 2010/08/20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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. Epub 2011/11/18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Matthew D. Ingham & Adam S. Feldman

Authors
  1. Matthew D. Ingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam S. Feldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam S. Feldman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological, Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medic, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Michael A. Gorin

  2. The James Buchanan Brady Urological, Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medic, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Mohamad E. Allaf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ingham, M.D., Feldman, A.S. (2019). Renal Mass Biopsy. In: Gorin, M., Allaf, M. (eds) Diagnosis and Surgical Management of Renal Tumors. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92309-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92309-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92308-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92309-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation