• linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    How renal mass biopsy impacts management

    Robert M. Turner, II, MDRobert M. Turner, II, MD

    UT SUO 2015 Internship Member Profile

    Dr. Turner
    is a urologic oncology fellow and postdoctoral scholar at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. During the Society of Urologic Oncology 2015 winter meeting, he was one of several urologic oncology fellows to contribute articles to Urology Times through a collaborative “UT SUO Internship.” Urology Times extends its thanks to all of the fellows and the Society of Urologic Oncology for participating in this unique partnership. For other articles in this series, click here.


    At the 2015 Society of Urologic Oncology annual meeting in Washington, J. Stuart Wolf, Jr., MD, addressed concerns about the diagnostic inaccuracies of core renal biopsy in the diagnosis of small renal masses.

    Also see: Trials explore immune checkpoint blockade in NMIBC

    In his presentation, Dr. Wolf argued, “Biopsy does not need to perfectly identify histologic type and grade when it is paired with a risk-stratified, sized-based management algorithm.”

    In a study conducted at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where Dr. Wolf is professor of urology, investigators considered an approach that combined core biopsy risk stratification with an algorithm based on size (J Urol 2013; 189:441-6). To test reliability of the approach, the authors compared the treatment assignment (surveillance vs. excision) in 151 patients based on size and biopsy histology with the appropriateness of that assignment as determined by final pathology after surgical excision. Dr. Wolf demonstrated that use of renal mass biopsy, combined with a size-based management algorithm, has an excellent positive predictive value (100% in that study) but an imperfect negative predictive value (86%).

    The combination of renal mass biopsy with a size-based management algorithm was also applied to a multi-institutional database compiled by active robotic partial nephrectomy surgeons (J Urol 2014; 192:1337-42). In that study, the authors concluded that about half the patients theoretically could have avoided surgery had the algorithm, which incorporates both size and biopsy histology, been applied preoperatively.

    “The greatest liability [of incorporation of renal mass biopsy in treatment decisions] is false negatives,” Dr. Wolf conceded. He noted that, in his updated series, 17% of patients would have been incorrectly assigned to surveillance, and in fact harbored worse pathology than suggested by biopsy. He was reassured, however, that those patients who underwent delayed intervention had similar rates of partial nephrectomy and adverse pathology when compared with those patients who underwent early intervention.

    Next: In patients undergoing surveillance, increasing growth rate was associated with adverse pathology


    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • No comments available