Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aim to present the retrospective results of percutaneous biopsies performed on solid kidney lesions in our clinic with the literature.

Material and Methods: In this retrospective descriptive study approved by the ethics committee in our center, the demographic features and histopathological results of 57 patients who had a solid mass in the kidney between 2017-2020 and underwent ultrasonography-guided percutaneous kidney biopsy in our interventional radiology clinic were analyzed from the hospital database. Patients without pathology results were excluded from the study.

Results: Our patients consisted of 35 men (61,4%) and 23 women (38,6%). The average age was 59.02±15.33(6-94). We had 1 child and 56 adult patients. 29 of the kidney lesions were located in the left kidney(50,9%) and 28 were located in the right kidney(49,1%). In 44 patients(77.2%) who had malignant pathology; the results were 41 renal cell carcinoma(93.2%), 2 lung squamous cell carcinoma metastasis(4.5%), and 1 primary metastatic pleomorphic adenoma of the salivary gland(2.3%). In a total of 13 patients(22.8%) whose pathology results were benign; the results were 5 oncocytomas(38.5%), 5 angiomyolipoma(38.5%), 2 chronic pyelonephritis(15.4%) and 1 metanephric adenoma(7.6%). Renal cell carcinoma rate was 71.9% among all lesions.

Conclusion: Radiological methods may not provide sufficient diagnostic data in the differential diagnosis of solid renal masses. In our study, the rates of benign lesions as a result of the percutaneous biopsy were higher compared to the literature. Therefore, we believe that it is remarkable in terms of the importance of preoperative biopsy in solid lesions.

Keywords

• renal mass
• percutaneous biopsy
• renal cell carcinoma

Renal kitle perkütan biyopsi sonuçlarımızın retrospektif incelenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada kliniğimizde solid böbrek lezyonlarına yapılan perkütan biyopsilerinin retrospektif sonuçlarını literatür eşliğinde sunmayı amaçlıyoruz.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kendi merkezimizde etik kurulunca onaylanan bu retrospektif tanımlayıcı çalışmada 2017-2020 yılları arasında böbrekte solid kitle tespit edilen ve girişimsel radyoloji kliniğimizde ultrasonografi eşliğinde perkütan böbrek biyopsisi yaptığımız 57 hastanın demografik özellikleri ve histopatolojik sonuçları hastane veri tabanından taranarak elde edilen sonuçlar incelendi. Patoloji sonucu olmayan hastalar çalışma dışı bırakıldı.

Bulgular: Hastalarımız 35 erkek (%61,4) ve 22 kadından (%38,6) oluşmaktaydı. Yaş ortalaması 59,02±15,33 (6-94) idi. 1 çocuk ve 56 erişkin hastamız mevcuttu. Böbrek lezyonlarının 29’u sol böbrek (%50,9), 28’i sağ böbrek (%49,1) yerleşimli idi. Patoloji sonuçları malign olan toplam 44 hastada (%77,2); 41 renal hücreli karsinom (%93,2), 2 akciğer skuamöz hücreli karsinom metastazı (%4,5) ve 1 primeri bilinen tükrük bezinin metastaz yapan pleomorfik adenomu (%2,3) ve sonucu benign olan toplam 13 hastada (%22,8) ise; 5 onkositom (%38,5), 5 anjiomyolipom (%38,5), 2 kronik piyelonefrit (%15,4) ve 1 metanefrik adenom (%7,6) olarak elde edildi. Tüm lezyonlar içerisinde renal hücreli karsinom oranı %71,9 olarak bulundu.

Sonuç: Tıbbi görüntülemedeki son gelişmelere rağmen solid renal kitlelerin ayırıcı tanısında radyolojik yöntemler yeterli tanısal veri sağlamayabilir. Perkütan biyosi sonucunda literatüre kıyasla benign lezyon oranlarının çalışmamızda yüksek olması solid lezyonlarda cerrahi öncesi biyopsinin önemi açısından dikkat çekici olduğunu düşünüyoruz. Ülkemizde geleceğe dönük doğru yaklaşım geliştirebilmemize yardımcı olabilecek çok merkezli ve prospektif çalışmalara ihtiyaç olacağı kanaatindeyiz.

Keywords

• renal kitle
• perkütan biyopsi
• renal hücreli karsinom

References

1. 1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018. Eur J Cancer. 2018;103:356-87.
2. 2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424.
3. 3. Novara G, Ficarra V, Antonelli A, et al. Validation of the 2009 TNM version in a large multi-institutional cohort of patients treated for renal cell carcinoma: are further improvements needed? Eur Urol. 2010;58(4):588-95.
4. 4. Patard J-J, Leray E, Rodriguez A, et al. Correlation between Symptom Graduation, Tumor Characteristics and Survival in Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2003;44(2):226-32.
5. 5. O'Connor SD, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, et al. 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.
6. 6. Cho E, Adami H-O, Lindblad P. Epidemiology of renal cell cancer. Hematology/Oncology Clinics. 2011;25(4):651-65.
7. 7. King SC, Pollack LA, Li J, et al. 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.
8. 8. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(18):1331-4.

9. 9. Cancer Stat Facts: Kidney and Renal Pelvis Cancer: National Cancer Institute; 2018 [The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results]. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/kidrp.html.
10. 10. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol. 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2217-20.
11. 11. Kim JH, Sun HY, Hwang J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of small renal masses in real practice: sensitivity and specificity according to subjective radiologic interpretation. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):260.
12. 12. Rosenkrantz AB, Hindman N, Fitzgerald EF, et al. MRI features of renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(6):W421-7.
13. 13. Hindman N, Ngo L, Genega EM, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques? Radiology. 2012;265(2):468-77.
14. 14. Patard JJ, Leray E, Rioux-Leclercq N, et al. Prognostic value of histologic subtypes in renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter experience. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2763-71.
15. 15. Stella M, Chinello C, Cazzaniga A, et al. Histology-guided proteomic analysis to investigate the molecular profiles of clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma grades. J Proteomics. 2019;191:38-47.
16. 16. Halverson SJ, Kunju LP, Bhalla R, et al. Accuracy of determining small renal mass management with risk stratified biopsies: confirmation by final pathology. J Urol. 2013;189(2):441-6.
17. 17. Yang CS, Choi E, Idrees MT, et al. Percutaneous biopsy of the renal mass: FNA or core needle biopsy? Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125(6):407-15.
18. 18. Wang X, Lv Y, Xu Z, et al. Accuracy and safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle core biopsy of renal masses: A single center experience in China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(13):e0178.
19. 19. Herrera-Caceres JO, Finelli A, Jewett MAS. Renal tumor biopsy: indicators, technique, safety, accuracy results, and impact on treatment decision management. World J Urol. 2019;37(3):437-43.
20. 20. Moch H, Cubilla AL, Humphrey PA, et al. The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part A: Renal, Penile, and Testicular Tumours. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):93-105.
21. 21. Kato M, Suzuki T, Suzuki Y, et al. Natural history of small renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of growth rate, histological grade, cell proliferation and apoptosis. J Urol. 2004;172(3):863-6.
22. 22. Sahin M, Canda AE, Mungan MU, et al. Benign lesions underwent radical nephrectomy for renal cancer. Turk J Urol. 2004;30(4):405-09.
23. 23. Skolarus TA, Serrano MF, Grubb RL, 3rd, et al. Effect of reclassification on the incidence of benign and malignant renal tumors. J Urol. 2010;183(2):455-8.
24. 24. Kutikov A, Fossett LK, Ramchandani P, et al. Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for solitary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging. Urology. 2006;68(4):737-40.
25. 25. Lee SH, Park SU, Rha KH, et al. Trends in the incidence of benign pathological lesions at partial nephrectomy for presumed renal cell carcinoma in renal masses on preoperative computed tomography imaging: a single institute experience with 290 consecutive patients. Int J Urol. 2010;17(6):512-16.
26. 26. Bhindi B, Lohse CM, Mason RJ, et al. Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging? Urology. 2017;109:121-26.
27. 27. Welch HG, Skinner JS, Schroeck FR, et al. Regional Variation of Computed Tomographic Imaging in the United States and the Risk of Nephrectomy. JAMA internal medicine. 2018;178(2):221-27.
28. 28. Tamboli P, Ro JY, Amin MB, et al. Benign tumors and tumor-like lesions of the adult kidney. Part II: Benign mesenchymal and mixed neoplasms, and tumor-like lesions. Adv Anat Pathol. 2000;7(1):47-66.
29. 29. Mei M, Rosen LE, Reddy V, et al. Concurrent angiomyolipomas and renal cell neoplasms in patients without tuberous sclerosis: A retrospective study. Int J Surg Pathol. 2015;23(4):265-70.
30. 30. Choudhary S, Rajesh A, Mayer NJ, et al. Renal oncocytoma: CT features cannot reliably distinguish oncocytoma from other renal neoplasms. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(5):517-22.
31. 31. Hosokawa Y, Kinouchi T, Sawai Y, et al. Renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat. Int J Clin Oncol. 2002;7(2):120-3.
32. 32. Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, et al. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology. 2008;249(1):16-31.
33. 33. Gözükara KH, Rifaioğlu MM. Benign Böbrek Tümörleri. In: Yıldırım A, editor. Böbrek Kanseri Güncelleme. Istanbul: Türk Üroloji Dernegi; 2016. p. 85-86.
34. 34. Mitnick JS, Bosniak MA, Rothberg M, et al. Metastatic neoplasm to the kidney studied by computed tomography and sonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1985;9(1):43-9.
35. 35. Rybicki FJ, Shu KM, Cibas ES, et al. 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.
36. 36. Bex A, Albiges L, Ljungberg B, et al. Updated European Association of Urology guidelines regarding adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2017;71(5):719-22.
37. 37. Veltri A, Grosso M, Castagneri F, et al. Radiofrequency thermal ablation of small tumors in transplanted kidneys: an evolving nephron-sparing option. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(5):674-9.
38. 38. Volpe A, Mattar K, Finelli A, et al. Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2333-7.
39. 39. Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, et al. Renal mass biopsy--a renaissance? J Urol. 2008;179(1):20-7.
40. 40. Caoili EM, Davenport MS, editors. Role of percutaneous needle biopsy for renal masses. Seminars in interventional radiology; 2014: Thieme Medical Publishers.
41. 41. Appelbaum AH, Kamba TT, Cohen AS, et al. Effectiveness and safety of image-directed biopsies: coaxial technique versus conventional fine-needle aspiration. South Med J. 2002;95(2):212-7.