Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses

DURMAZ, FATMA; ÖZGÖKÇE, MESUT; Kutluhan, Musab Ali; KANKILIC, NAZIM A; özkaçmaz, sercan; Dündar, İlyas

doi:10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890

Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses

İlyas Dündar, (Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Van, Türkiye)

Fatma Durmaz, (Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Van, Türkiye)

Sercan ÖZKAÇMAZ, (Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Van, Türkiye)

Nazım Abdulkadir KANKILIÇ, (Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Van Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Üroloji Anabilim Dalı, Van, Türkiye)

Musa Ali KUTLUHAN, (Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Bursa Yüksek İhtisas Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Üroloji Anabilim Dalı, Bursa, Türkiye)

Mesut ÖZGÖKÇE (Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Van, Türkiye)

Yeni Üroloji Dergisi

3 0

Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 131 - 139 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890 İndeks Tarihi: 15-08-2022

Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses

Öz:

Objective: In this study, we aim to present the retrospective results of percutaneous biopsies per- formed on solid kidney lesions in our clinic with the literature. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective descriptive study approved by the ethics commit- tee 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 percutane- ous 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 locat- ed 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 angiomyolipo- ma(38.5%), 2 chronic pyelonephritis(15.4%) and 1 metanephric adenoma(7.6%). Renal cell carcino- ma rate was 71.9% among all lesions. Conclusion: Radiological methods may not provide sufficient diagnostic data in the differen- tial diagnosis of solid renal masses.In our study, the rates of benign lesions as a result of percutane- ous biopsy were higher compared to the literature. Therefore, we believe that it is remarkable in terms of the impor- tance of preoperative biopsy in solid lesions.

Anahtar Kelime:

Renal kitle perkütan biyopsi sonuçlarımızın retrospektif incelenmesi

Öz:

Amaç: Bu çalışmada kliniğimizde solid böb- rek lezyonlarına yapılan perkütan biyopsilerinin retrospektif sonuçlarını literatür eşliğinde sunma- yı amaçlıyoruz. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kendi merkezimizde etik kurulunca onaylanan bu retrospektif tanımla- yıcı çalışmada 2017-2020 yılları arasında böbrek- te solid kitle tespit edilen ve girişimsel radyoloji kliniğimizde ultrasonografi eşliğinde perkütan böbrek biyopsisi yaptığımız 57 hastanın demogra- fik özellikleri ve histopatolojik sonuçları hastane veri tabanından taranarak elde edilen sonuçlar in- celendi. Patoloji sonucu olmayan hastalar çalışma dışı bırakıldı. Bulgular: Hastalarımız 35 erkek (%61,4) ve 22 kadından (%38,6) oluşmaktaydı. Yaş ortala- ması 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 has- tada (%77,2); 41 renal hücreli karsinom (%93,2), 2 akciğer skuamöz hücreli karsinom metastazı (%4,5) ve 1 primeri bilinen tükrük bezinin metas- taz yapan pleomorfik adenomu (%2,3) ve sonucu benign olan toplam 13 hastada (%22,8) ise; 5 on- kositom (%38,5), 5 anjiomyolipom (%38,5), 2 kro- nik 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 gelişme- lere rağmen solid renal kitlelerin ayırıcı tanısında radyolojik yöntemler yeterli tanısal veri sağla- mayabilir. 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 yar- dımcı olabilecek çok merkezli ve prospektif çalışmalara ihtiyaç ola- cağı kanaatindeyiz.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Cancer inci- dence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018. Eur J Cancer. 2018; 103:356-87.
2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statis- tics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and morta- lity worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(6):394-424.
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 impro- vements needed? Eur Urol. 2010; 58(4):588-595.
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; 44:226-232.
5. O’Connor SD, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, et al. Incidental fin- ding of renal masses at unenhanced CT: prevalence and analysis of features for guiding management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(1):139-45.
6. Cho E, Adami H-O, Lindblad P. Epidemiology of renal cell cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2011; 25(4):651-665.
7. King SC, Pollack LA, Li J, et al. Continued increase in inci- dence of renal cell carcinoma, especially in young patients and high grade disease: United States 2001 to 2010. J Urol. 2014; 191(6):1665-1670.
8. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. Rising in- cidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98(18):1331-1334.
9. Cancer Stat Facts: Kidney and Renal Pelvis Cancer: Natio- nal Cancer Institute [online]. 2018. Available from: http:// seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/kidrp.html.
10. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 2003; 170:2217-2220.
11. Kim JH, Sun HY, Hwang J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and cont- rast-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. 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):421-427.
13. Hindman N, Ngo L, Genega EM, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell re- nal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques? Ra- diology. 2012; 265:468-477.
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; 23:2763-2771.
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. Halverson SJ, Kunju LP, Bhalla R, et al. Accuracy of deter- mining small renal mass management with risk stratified biopsies: confirmation by final pathology. J Urol. 2013; 189(2):441-6.
17. Yang CS, Choi E, Idrees MT, et al. Percutaneous biopsy of the renal mass: FNA or core needle biopsy? Cancer Cyto- pathol 2017; 125:407-415.
18. Wang X, Lv Y, Xu Z, et al. Accuracy and safety of ultra- sound-guided percutaneous needle core biopsy of renal masses: A single center experience in China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(13):0178.
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):437-443.
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 Tu- mours. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(1):93-105.
21. Kato M, Suzuki T, Suzuki Y, et al. Natural history of small renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of growth rate, histologi- cal grade, cell proliferation and apoptosis. J Urol. 2004; 172(3):863-866.
22. Sahin M, Canda AE, Mungan MU, et al. Benign lesions un- derwent radical nephrectomy for renal cancer. Turk J Urol. 2004; 30:405-409.
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):455-458.
24. Kutikov A, Fossett LK, Ramchandani P, et al. Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for so- litary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging. Urology. 2006; 68(4):737-740.
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 preo- perative computed tomography imaging: a single institute experience with 290 consecutive patients. Int J Urol . 2010; 17:512-516.
26. Bhindi B, Lohse CM, Mason RJ, et al. Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Sta- ging? Urology. 2017; 109:121-126.
27. Welch HG, Skinner JS, Schroeck FR, et al. Regional Varia- tion of Computed Tomographic Imaging in the United Sta- tes and the Risk of Nephrectomy. JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178(2):221-227.
28. Tamboli P, Ro JY, Amin MB, et al. Benign tumors and tu- mor-like lesions of the adult kidney. Part II: Benign mesen- chymal and mixed neoplasms, and tumor-like lesions. Adv Anat Pathol. 2000; 7(1):47-66.
29. Mei M, Rosen LE, Reddy V, et al. Concurrent angiomyo- lipomas and renal cell neoplasms in patients without tu- berous sclerosis: A retrospective study. Int J Surg Pathol. 2015; 23(4):265-270.
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):517-522.
31. Hosokawa Y, Kinouchi T, Sawai Y, et al. Renal angiomyoli- poma with minimal fat. Int J Clin Oncol. 2002; 7(2):120-123.
32. Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, et al. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology. 2008; 249(1):16-31.
33. Gözükara KH, Rifaioğlu MM. Benign Böbrek Tümörleri. In: Yıldırım A, editor. Böbrek Kanseri Güncelleme. Istan- bul: Türk Üroloji Dernegi; 2016. p. 85-86.
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. 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):1281-1287.
36. Bex A, Albiges L, Ljungberg B, et al. Updated European As- sociation of Urology guidelines regarding adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(5):719-722.
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):674-679.
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):2333-2337.
39. Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, et al. Renal mass bi- opsy--a renaissance? J Urol. 2008; 179(1):20-27.
40. Caoili EM, Davenport MS. Role of percutaneous need- le biopsy for renal masses. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2014; 31(1):20-26.
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.

APA	Dündar İ, DURMAZ F, özkaçmaz s, KANKILIC N, Kutluhan M, ÖZGÖKÇE M (2021). Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. , 131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
Chicago	Dündar İlyas,DURMAZ FATMA,özkaçmaz sercan,KANKILIC NAZIM A,Kutluhan Musab Ali,ÖZGÖKÇE MESUT Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. (2021): 131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
MLA	Dündar İlyas,DURMAZ FATMA,özkaçmaz sercan,KANKILIC NAZIM A,Kutluhan Musab Ali,ÖZGÖKÇE MESUT Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. , 2021, ss.131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
AMA	Dündar İ,DURMAZ F,özkaçmaz s,KANKILIC N,Kutluhan M,ÖZGÖKÇE M Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. . 2021; 131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
Vancouver	Dündar İ,DURMAZ F,özkaçmaz s,KANKILIC N,Kutluhan M,ÖZGÖKÇE M Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. . 2021; 131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
IEEE	Dündar İ,DURMAZ F,özkaçmaz s,KANKILIC N,Kutluhan M,ÖZGÖKÇE M "Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses." , ss.131 - 139, 2021. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
ISNAD	Dündar, İlyas vd. "Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses". (2021), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890

APA	Dündar İ, DURMAZ F, özkaçmaz s, KANKILIC N, Kutluhan M, ÖZGÖKÇE M (2021). Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi, 16(2), 131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
Chicago	Dündar İlyas,DURMAZ FATMA,özkaçmaz sercan,KANKILIC NAZIM A,Kutluhan Musab Ali,ÖZGÖKÇE MESUT Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi 16, no.2 (2021): 131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
MLA	Dündar İlyas,DURMAZ FATMA,özkaçmaz sercan,KANKILIC NAZIM A,Kutluhan Musab Ali,ÖZGÖKÇE MESUT Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi, vol.16, no.2, 2021, ss.131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
AMA	Dündar İ,DURMAZ F,özkaçmaz s,KANKILIC N,Kutluhan M,ÖZGÖKÇE M Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi. 2021; 16(2): 131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
Vancouver	Dündar İ,DURMAZ F,özkaçmaz s,KANKILIC N,Kutluhan M,ÖZGÖKÇE M Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi. 2021; 16(2): 131 - 139. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
IEEE	Dündar İ,DURMAZ F,özkaçmaz s,KANKILIC N,Kutluhan M,ÖZGÖKÇE M "Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses." Yeni Üroloji Dergisi, 16, ss.131 - 139, 2021. 10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890
ISNAD	Dündar, İlyas vd. "Retrospective evaluation of our percutaneous biopsy results of renal masses". Yeni Üroloji Dergisi 16/2 (2021), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-818890