ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2018
Core needle biopsy clarify the histology of the small renal masses and may prevent overtreatment.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Accuracy, safety, and diagnostic prediction of percutaneous renal mass biopsy and subsequent changes in treatment.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Article
- Advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma: A narrative review.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2022Review
- Non-invasive urine markers for the differentiation between RCCs and oncocytoma.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- The role of percutaneous fine needle aspiration biopsy in the management of small renal masses without chance of nephron-sparing surgery.International urology and nephrology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy in small renal masses ≤ 4 cm in response to the rising prevalence of renal masses.
methodsData from 129 consecutive patients who underwent biopsies of solid renal masses of ≤ 4 cm were prospectively collected between September 2014 and January 2017. In cases with inconclusive biopsies, a repeat biopsy was recommended. Histology from surgical specimens was used as gold standard to evaluate the accuracy of renal biopsies.
resultsThe initial biopsies revealed malignancy in 77 patients (59.7%) and benign histology in 35 patients (27.1%), whereas 17 (13.2%) were inconclusive. Fifty-six patients with malignant histology underwent either partial or radical nephrectomy according to the physicians' recommendation, while two patients with benign histology requested surgery. In all cases, the biopsy diagnosis was confirmed upon final histopathology. Of the inconclusive cases, six underwent repeat biopsies all with benign histology. Further, three patients opted for immediate partial nephrectomy with benign oncocytoma in two and renal cell carcinoma in the third. The remaining eight patients opted for follow-up CT scans with no sign of progression with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. No biopsy related complications were reported in the first 30 days after RTB. Overall, the treatment strategy changed in 45 of 129 (35%) patients due to biopsy results. This was either due to benign findings or due to the discovery of non-renal cell cancers.
conclusionCore needle biopsies of solid renal masses ≤ 4 cm have excellent accuracy and may be used to select the correct treatment. Importantly, they may serve to prevent overtreatment of benign tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.