Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40034716›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2025

Renal Mass Biopsy Prior to Surgical Excision: Practice, Diagnostic Performance, and Impact on Management in the UroCCR Registry (Ancillary Study No. 118).

Pauline Proye, Bastien Gondran-Tellier, Floriane Michel, Karim Bensalah, Pierre Bigot, François Audenet, Cécile Champy, Pierre Merlin, Franck Bruyere, Morgan Roupret and 24 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

34 authors.

Pauline ProyeAix-Marseille Université, Service de Chirurgie Urologique et de Transplantation rénale, CHU Conception, APHM, Marseille, France.
Bastien Gondran-TellierAix-Marseille Université, Service de Chirurgie Urologique et de Transplantation rénale, CHU Conception, APHM, Marseille, France.
Floriane MichelAix-Marseille Université, Service de Chirurgie Urologique et de Transplantation rénale, CHU Conception, APHM, Marseille, France.
Karim BensalahDépartement d'urologie, CHU de Rennes, Rennes, France.
Pierre BigotDépartement d'urologie, CHU d'Angers, Angers, France.
François AudenetDépartement d'urologie, Hopital Européen Georges-Pompidou, APHP, Paris, France.
Cécile ChampyInserm, Clinical Investigation Center 1430, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Creteil, France.
Pierre MerlinDépartement d'Urologie, Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Franck BruyereDépartement d'Urologie, CHRU Tours, Tours, France.
Morgan RoupretUrology, GRC 5 Predictive Onco-Uro, AP-HP, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Gautier MarcqDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
Louis SurlemontDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Rouen, Rouen, France.
Bastien ParierDépartement d'Urologie, Hôpital Bicêtre, APHP, Bicêtre, France.
Thibaut WaeckelDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Caen Normandie, Caen, France.
Constance MichelDépartement d'Urologie, Hôpital Privé St Joseph, Paris, France.
Nicolas BrangerService d'Urologie, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Thibault TricartDépartement d'Urologie, CHRU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Clément SarrazinDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Jean-Jacques PatardDépartement d'Urologie, CH Mont-de-Marsan, Mont-de-Marsan, France.
Maxime ValléeDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Jean-Baptiste BeauvalService d'Urologie, Clinique La Croix du Sud, Toulouse, France.
Alexis FontenilDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Nîmes, Nîmes, France.
Richard MalletService d'Urologie, Hôpital Privé Francheville, Périgueux, France.
Julien GuillotreauDépartement d'Urologie, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.
Frédéric PanthierDépartement d'Urologie, Hôpital Tenon, APHP, Paris, France.
Olivier BelasPôle Santé Sud, Le Mans, France.
Stéphane De VergieDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.
Quentin-Côme Le ClercCabinet Urologie, Clinique Santé Atlantique, Nantes, France.
Nicolas DoumercDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Rangueil, Toulouse, France.
Fayek TahaDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Reims, Reims, France.
Benjamin RougetService d'Urologie, CH Libourne, Libourne, France.
Pierre GimelDépartement d'urologie, CHU Tenon, APHP, Paris, France.
Jean-Christophe BernhardDépartement d'Urologie, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Romain BoissierAix-Marseille Université, Service de Chirurgie Urologique et de Transplantation rénale, CHU Conception, APHM, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: A renal mass biopsy (RMB) is not systematically recommended before surgical excision of a renal mass, although it has demonstrated elevated accuracy in determining renal masses with low morbidity. Our aim was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of an RMB, the clinical and tumoral factors associated with RMB practice, and the impact of an RMB on renal cell carcinoma management in a contemporary prospective national registry-UroCCR (2010-2021). Methods: We identified all patients with a single renal mass (pT1-4 N0-2 M0 or benign) who were treated surgically and stratified them according to the performance of a prior RMB. Patients treated by active surveillance, percutaneous ablative treatment, or stereotaxic radiotherapy were excluded. Diagnostic accuracy of an RMB was determined in the RMB group. Clinical and tumoral factors associated with the practice of RMBs were analyzed using logistic regression. Key findings and limitations: In total, 9283 patients were included, who presented 1594 tumors (17%) with a prior RMB. RMBs were 92.4% contributive. The correlation between an RMB and excision in the determination of benign/malignant disease, histological subtype, and grade are, respectively, 96.9%, 86.4%, and 52.6%. The impact of an RMB versus no prior RMB was determined according to the rate of surgical excision for benign lesion and the rate of partial nephrectomy (63.9% vs 57.8%; Conclusions and clinical implications: An RMB is performed rarely when its diagnostic performance is high. A prior RMB significantly changes the management of localized renal masses, with fewer surgical procedures for benign renal masses and conservative treatment in a higher proportion of patients. Patient summary: In a large and contemporary registry, we demonstrated that a renal mass biopsy has excellent diagnostic accuracy, significantly reduces renal surgery for benign masses and low-grade/stage renal cell carcinoma, and increases conservative surgical excision.

Indexed as

DiagnosisKidney neoplasmNeedle core biopsyNephrectomyRenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID40034716
PMCPMC11872618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.