Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 283–290 | Cite as

CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour cutting needle biopsy: retrospective evaluation of diagnostic yield, safety, and risk factors for diagnostic failure

  • Toshihiro IguchiEmail author
  • Takao Hiraki
  • Yusuke Matsui
  • Hiroyasu Fujiwara
  • Jun Sakurai
  • Yoshihisa Masaoka
  • Hideo Gobara
  • Susumu Kanazawa
Interventional

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate retrospectively the diagnostic yield, safety, and risk factors for diagnostic failure of computed tomography (CT) fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour biopsy.

Methods

Biopsies were performed for 208 tumours (mean diameter 2.3 cm; median diameter 2.1 cm; range 0.9–8.5 cm) in 199 patients. One hundred and ninety-nine tumours were ≤4 cm. All 208 initial procedures were divided into diagnostic success and failure groups. Multiple variables related to the patients, lesions, and procedures were assessed to determine the risk factors for diagnostic failure.

Results

After performing 208 initial and nine repeat biopsies, 180 malignancies and 15 benign tumours were pathologically diagnosed, whereas 13 were not diagnosed. In 117 procedures, 118 Grade I and one Grade IIIa adverse events (AEs) occurred. Neither Grade ≥IIIb AEs nor tumour seeding were observed within a median follow-up period of 13.7 months. Logistic regression analysis revealed only small tumour size (≤1.5 cm; odds ratio 3.750; 95% confidence interval 1.362–10.326; P = 0.011) to be a significant risk factor for diagnostic failure.

Conclusion

CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour biopsy is a safe procedure with a high diagnostic yield. A small tumour size (≤1.5 cm) is a significant risk factor for diagnostic failure.

Key points

CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour biopsy has a high diagnostic yield.

CT fluoroscopy-guided renal tumour biopsy is safe.

Small tumour size (≤1.5 cm) is a risk factor for diagnostic failure.

Keywords

Tomography Fluoroscopy Biopsy Tumour Kidney 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

US

Ultrasound

AE

Adverse event

OR

Odds ratio

CI

Confidence interval

RCC

Renal cell carcinoma

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Susumu Kanazawa, Department of Radiology, Okayama University Medical School.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained (approval no. KEN1701-509).

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Ninety-six of the tumours were included in a previous publication in which we reported the value of percutaneous biopsy of renal tumours in patients referred for cryoablation (Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2017;26(2):86-91). Their follow-up data were updated for this study. The present study differs from the previous one in that the cohort was confined to procedures performed only under CT fluoroscopy guidance.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Thompson RH, Atwel T, Schmit G et al (2015) Comparison of partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation for cT1 renal cell masses. Eur Urol 67:252–259Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Remzi M, Katzenbeisser D, Waldert M et al (2007) Renal tumour size measured radiologically before surgery is an unreliable variable for predicting histopathological features: benign tumours are not necessarily small. BJU Int 99:1002–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 180:2333–23337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 60:578–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maturen KE, Nghiem HV, Caoili EM, Higgins EG, Wolf JS Jr, Wood DP Jr (2007) Renal mass core biopsy: accuracy and impact on clinical management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:563–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 180:1257–1261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veltri A, Garetto I, Tosetti I et al (2011) Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of imaging-guided needle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150 cases. Eur Radiol 21:393–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 73:586–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katada K, Kato R, Anno H et al (1996) Guidance with real-time CT fluoroscopy: early clinical experience. Radiology 200:851–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daly B, Templeton PA (1999) Real-time CT fluoroscopy: evolution of an interventional tool. Radiology 211:309–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carlson SK, Bender CE, Classic KL et al (2001) Benefits and safety of CT fluoroscopy in interventional radiologic procedures. Radiology 219:515–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hiraki T, Mimura H, Gobara H et al (2009) CT fluoroscopy-guided biopsy of 1,000 pulmonary lesions performed with 20-gauge coaxial cutting needles: diagnostic yield and risk factors for diagnostic failure. Chest 136:1612–1617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamagami T, Iida S, Kato T, Tanaka O, Nishimura T (2003) Combining fine-needle aspiration and core biopsy under CT fluoroscopy guidance: a better way to treat patients with lung nodules? AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:811–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Arellano RS, McDougal WS, Mueller PR (2003) Renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and technical success with radio-frequency ablation of 42 tumors. Radiology 226:417–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iguchi T, Hiraki T, Gobara H et al (2017) Value of percutaneous needle biopsy of small renal tumors in patients referred for cryoablation. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 26:86–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 171:1802–1805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidbauer J, Remzi M, Memarsadeghi M et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy of renal masses. Eur Urol 53:1003–1011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lebret T, Poulain JE, Molinie V et al (2007) Percutaneous core biopsy for renal masses: indications, accuracy and results. J Urol 178:1184–1188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park SY, Park BK, Kim CK, Kwon GY (2013) Ultrasound guided core biopsy of small renal masses: diagnostic rate and limitations. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:90–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aribas¸ BK, Arda K, Aktas E et al (2011) Percutaneous US-guided needle biopsies of solid renal masses. Neoplasma 58:146–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Breda A, Treat EG, Haft-Candell L et al (2010) Comparison of accuracy of 14-, 18- and 20-G needles in ex-vivo renal mass biopsy: a prospective, blinded study. BJU Int 105:940–945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hobbs DJ, Zhou M, Campbell SC, Aydin H, Weight CJ, Lane BR (2013) The impact of location and number of cores on the diagnostic accuracy of renal mass biopsy: an ex vivo study. World J Urol 31:1159–1164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsivian M, Rampersaud EN Jr, del Pilar Laguna Pes M et al (2014) Small renal mass biopsy-how, what and when: report from an international consensus panel. BJU Int 113:854–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Volpe A, Kachura JR, Geddie WR et al (2007) Techniques, safety and accuracy of sampling of renal tumors by fine needle aspiration and core biopsy. J Urol 178:379–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ralls PW, Barakos JA, Kaptein EM et al (1987) Renal biopsy-related hemorrhage: frequency and comparison of CT and sonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 11:1031–1034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Volpe A, Finelli A, Gill IS et al (2012) Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours. Eur Urol 62:491–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Szolar DH, Kammerhuber F, Altziebler S et al (1997) Multiphasic helical CT of the kidney: increased conspicuity for detection and characterization of small (<3-cm) renal masses. Radiology 202:211–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsui Y, Hiraki T, Gobara H et al (2016) Radiation exposure of interventional radiologists during computed tomography fluoroscopy-guided renal cryoablation and lung radiofrequency ablation: direct measurement in a clinical setting. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 39:894–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim GR, Hur J, Lee SM et al (2011) CT fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy versus conventional CT-guided lung biopsy: a prospective controlled study to assess radiation doses and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 21:232–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshihiro Iguchi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Takao Hiraki
    • 1
  • Yusuke Matsui
    • 1
  • Hiroyasu Fujiwara
    • 1
  • Jun Sakurai
    • 1
  • Yoshihisa Masaoka
    • 1
  • Hideo Gobara
    • 1
  • Susumu Kanazawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyOkayama University Medical SchoolOkayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations