Advertisement

Early and Late Complications of Percutaneous Core Needle Biopsy of Retroperitoneal Tumors at Two Tertiary Sarcoma Centers

  • David Berger-RichardsonEmail author
  • Sally M. Burtenshaw
  • Andrea M. Ibrahim
  • Rebecca A. Gladdy
  • Rebecca Auer
  • Rob Beecroft
  • Brendan C. Dickson
  • Bibianna Purgina
  • Kristin Ambacher
  • Carolyn Nessim
  • Carol J. Swallow
Sarcoma

Abstract

Background

Concern persists regarding percutaneous core needle biopsy (CNB) of a potentially malignant lesion of the retroperitoneum due to the perceived risk of immediate complications and adverse oncologic outcomes, including needle tract seeding (NTS).

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of (1) early complications and (2) NTS following CNB of suspected retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS).

Methods

Patients who underwent CNB of an RP mass with pre-biopsy suspicion of sarcoma were identified from a prospective database at two centers: (1) Princess Margaret Cancer Centre/Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto (2009–2015); and (2) The Ottawa Hospital (1999–2015). Early complications, including bleeding, pain, infection, and organ injury, were recorded. Instances of NTS were identified from long-term follow-up of patients who underwent resection of primary RPS at these two centers after initial CNB (1996–2013).

Results

Of 358 percutaneous CNBs of suspected RPS performed over the study period, 7 (2.0%) resulted in minor bleeding with no transfusion, 3 (0.8%) resulted in significant pain, 1 (0.3%) resulted in unplanned admission to hospital for observation, and 1 (0.3%) resulted in a pneumothorax. There were no infections. In 203 patients who underwent resection of RPS following CNB, crude cumulative local recurrence was 24% at 5 years. At a median follow-up of 44 months, there was one case of NTS (approximately 0.5%).

Conclusion

This large bi-institutional experience with CNB of an RP mass demonstrates that both the early complication rate and the incidence of NTS are very low. Physicians and patients can be reassured that the benefits of CNB in diagnosing sarcoma and determining its histologic subtype and grade far outweigh the risks.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The Jim Chamberlain Fund, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.

References

  1. 1.
    ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group. Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;25 Suppl 3:iii102–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) in the adult: a consensus approach from the Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(1):256–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Demehri S, Belzberg A, Blakeley J, Fayad LM. Conventional and functional MR imaging of peripheral nerve sheath tumors: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(8):1615–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strauss DC, Qureshi YA, Hayes AJ, Thway K, Fisher C, Thomas JM. The role of core needle biopsy in the diagnosis of suspected soft tissue tumours. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(5):523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dalal KM, Kattan MW, Antonescu CR, Brennan MF, Singer S. Subtype specific prognostic nomogram for patients with primary liposarcoma of the retroperitoneum, extremity, or trunk. Ann Surg. 2006;244(3):381–391.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ardoino I, Miceli R, Berselli M, et al. Histology-specific nomogram for primary retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 2010;116(10):2429–2436.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anaya DA, Lahat G, Wang X, et al. Postoperative nomogram for survival of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma treated with curative intent. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(2):397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moul JW, Bauer JJ, Srivastava S, et al. Perineal seeding of prostate cancer as the only evidence of clinical recurrence 14 years after needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy: molecular correlation. Urology. 1998;51(1):158–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polyzos SA, Anastasilakis AD. A systematic review of cases reporting needle tract seeding following thyroid fine needle biopsy. World J Surg. 2010;34(4):844–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee IS, Nguyen S, Shanberg AM. Needle tract seeding after percutaneous biopsy of Wilms tumor. J Urol. 1995;153(3 Pt 2):1074–1076.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Auvert J, Abbou CC, Lavarenne V. Needle tract seeding following puncture of renal oncocytoma. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1982;100:597–598.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shah JN, Fraker D, Guerry D, Feldman M, Kochman ML. Melanoma seeding of an EUS-guided fine needle track. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59(7):923–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hidai H, Sakuramoto T, Miura T, Nakahashi M, Kikyo S. Needle tract seeding following puncture of retroperitoneal liposarcoma. Eur Urol. 1983;9(6):368–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silva MA, Hegab B, Hyde C, Guo B, Buckels JA, Mirza DF. Needle track seeding following biopsy of liver lesions in the diagnosis of hepatocellular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2008;57(11):1592–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Volanis D, Neal DE, Warren AY, Gnanapragasam VJ. Incidence of needle-tract seeding following prostate biopsy for suspected cancer: a review of the literature. BJU Int. 2015;115(5):698–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger-Richardson D, Swallow CJ. Needle tract seeding after percutaneous biopsy of sarcoma: Risk/benefit considerations. Cancer. 2017;123(4):560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berger-Richardson D, Chesney TR, Englesakis M, Govindarajan A, Cleary SP, Swallow CJ. Trends in port-site metastasis after laparoscopic resection of incidental gallbladder cancer: a systematic review. Surgery. 2017;161(3):618–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alexander RJ, Jaques BC, Mitchell KG. Laparoscopically assisted colectomy and wound recurrence. Lancet. 1993;341(8839):249–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wexner SD, Cohen SM. Port site metastases after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cure of malignancy. Br J Surg. 1995;82(3):295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(20):2050–2059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hwang SI, Kim HO, Yoo CH, Shin JH, Son BH. Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1252–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oliveira MP, Lima PM, da Silva HJ, de Mello RJ. Neoplasm seeding in biopsy tract of the musculoskeletal system. A systematic review. Acta Ortop Bras. 2014;22(2):106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oliveira MP, Lima PM, de Mello RJ. Tumor contamination in the biopsy path of primary malignant bone tumors. Rev Bras Ortop. 2015;47(5):631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mohana R, Faisham W, Zulmi W, Nawfar A, Effat O, Salzihan M. The incidence of malignant infiltration in the biopsy tract of osteosarcoma. Malays Orthop J. 2007;1:7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ribeiro MB, de Oliveira CRGCM, Filippi RZ, et al. Estudo histopatológico do trajeto de biópsia de tumores musculoesqueléticos malignos. Acta Ortop Bras. 2009;17:279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaffenberger BH, Wakely PE, Jr., Mayerson JL. Local recurrence rate of fine-needle aspiration biopsy in primary high-grade sarcomas. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(7):618–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saghieh S, Masrouha KZ, Musallam KM, et al. The risk of local recurrence along the core-needle biopsy tract in patients with bone sarcomas. Iowa Orthop J. 2010;30:80–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chew C, Reid R, O’Dwyer PJ. Value of biopsy in the assessment of a retroperitoneal mass. Surgeon. 2006;4(2):79–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morosi C, Stacchiotti S, Marchiano A, et al. Correlation between radiological assessment and histopathological diagnosis in retroperitoneal tumors: analysis of 291 consecutive patients at a tertiary reference sarcoma center. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(12):1662–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilkinson MJ, Martin JL, Khan AA, Hayes AJ, Thomas JM, Strauss DC. Percutaneous core needle biopsy in retroperitoneal sarcomas does not influence local recurrence or overall survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(3):853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gronchi A, Strauss DC, Miceli R, et al. Variability in patterns of recurrence after resection of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS): a report on 1007 patients from the multi-institutional Collaborative RPS Working Group. Ann Surg. 2016;263(5):1002–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kattan MW, Heller G, Brennan MF. A competing-risks nomogram for sarcoma-specific death following local recurrence. Stat Med. 2003;22(22):3515–3525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Houdt WJ, Schrijver AM, Cohen-Hallaleh RB, et al. Needle tract seeding following core biopsies in retroperitoneal sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(9):1740–1745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hwang SY, Warrier S, Thompson S, Davidson T, Yang JL, Crowe P. Safety and accuracy of core biopsy in retroperitoneal sarcomas. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2016;12(1):31.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berger-Richardson D, Swallow CJ. Needle tract seeding after percutaneous biopsy of sarcoma: risk/benefit considerations. Cancer. 2017;123(4):560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Berger-Richardson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sally M. Burtenshaw
    • 3
    • 4
  • Andrea M. Ibrahim
    • 5
  • Rebecca A. Gladdy
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Rebecca Auer
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  • Rob Beecroft
    • 8
  • Brendan C. Dickson
    • 9
  • Bibianna Purgina
    • 10
  • Kristin Ambacher
    • 5
  • Carolyn Nessim
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  • Carol J. Swallow
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Lunenfeld Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Division of General SurgeryMount Sinai HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network and Sinai Health SystemTorontoCanada
  5. 5.The Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  7. 7.Division of General SurgeryThe Ottawa HospitalOttawaCanada
  8. 8.Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  9. 9.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineMount Sinai Hospital and University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  10. 10.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineThe Ottawa HospitalOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations