Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25364577›Full record

ReviewCancer biology & medicine2014

Heterogeneity and renal mass biopsy: a review of its role and reliability.

Jeffrey J Tomaszewski, Robert G Uzzo, Marc C Smaldone

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer biology & medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Translational andrology and urology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Imaging guided percutaneous renal biopsy: do it or not?Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeffrey J Tomaszewski1 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Rowan University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA ; 2 Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Robert G Uzzo1 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Rowan University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA ; 2 Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Marc C Smaldone1 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Rowan University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA ; 2 Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Temple University Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increased abdominal imaging has led to an increase in the detection of the incidental small renal mass (SRM). With increasing recognition that the malignant potential of SRMs is heterogeneous, ranging from benign (15%-20%) to aggressive (20%), enthusiasm for more conservative management strategies in the elderly and infirmed, such as active surveillance (AS), have grown considerably. As the management of the SRM evolves to incorporate ablative techniques and AS for low risk disease, the role of renal mass biopsy (RMB) to help guide individualized therapy is evolving. Historically, the role of RMB was limited to the evaluation of suspected metastatic disease, renal abscess, or lymphoma. However, in the contemporary era, the role of biopsy has grown, most notably to identify patients who harbor benign lesions and for whom treatment, particularly the elderly or frail, may be avoided. When performing a RMB to guide initial clinical decision making for small, localized tumors, the most relevant questions are often relegated to proof of malignancy and documentation (if possible) of grade. However, significant intratumoral heterogeneity has been identified in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) that may lead to an underestimation of the genetic complexity of a tumor when single-biopsy procedures are used. Heterogeneous genomic landscapes and branched parallel evolution of ccRCCs with spatially separated subclones creates an illusion of clonal dominance when assessed by single biopsies and raises important questions regarding how tumors can be optimally sampled and whether future evolutionary tumor branches might be predictable and ultimately targetable. This work raises profound questions concerning the genetic landscape of cancer and how tumor heterogeneity may affect, and possibly confound, targeted diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. In this review, we discuss the current role of RMB, the implications of tumor heterogeneity on diagnostic accuracy, and highlight promising future directions.

Indexed as

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC)renal mass biopsy (RMB)tumor heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID25364577
PMCPMC4197425
OpenAlexW1506208106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.