Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40815307›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Comparison of coaxial technique with sequential (non-coaxial) technique for renal mass biopsy: evaluation of diagnostic efficacy, complication rates, seeding risk, and clinical outcomes.

Maria Paz Garcia, Antonio Finelli, Rajesh Bhayana, Nicola Schieda, John Kachura, Adriano Basso Dias, Lucshman Raveendran, Jorge Abreu Gomez, Ankush Jajodia, Lisa Martin and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Maria Paz GarciaDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Antonio FinelliDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rajesh BhayanaDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Nicola SchiedaDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
John KachuraDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Adriano Basso DiasDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lucshman RaveendranDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jorge Abreu GomezDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ankush JajodiaDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lisa MartinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Susan PrendevilleDepartment of Pathology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Satheesh KrishnaDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. satheeshkrishna.jeyaraj@utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6603-7621

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRenal mass biopsy (RMB) enables histology-driven management. Guidelines strongly recommend RMB using a coaxial needle to minimize tumor seeding, albeit with a low level of supporting evidence.

objectivesTo evaluate if RMB in small renal masses (SRMs) with the coaxial technique was associated with lower seeding, less upstaging to pT3a, and less cancer-recurrence, compared to RMB without the coaxial technique (sequential technique). MATERIALS AND

methodsRetrospective study of RMB performed between 2004 and 2020, where biopsy-technique information was available. 1174 SRMs were biopsied (coaxial-59%; sequential-41%). Diagnostic yield, complication, procedure-time, seeding, upstaging to pT3a after nephrectomy, and cancer-recurrence were compared.

resultsDiagnostic yield did not differ significantly between coaxial and sequential techniques 87% (600/692) vs. 88% (425/482); p = 0.62. Complication rates were higher for the coaxial technique (31/692 (4%) vs. 10/482 (2%); p = 0.04). This difference was not significant after adjusting for imaging modality used (p = 0.35). There were 2 subjects with tumor seeding (tiny fragments in the perinephric fat beside the renal mass in the resected surgical specimen), one patient with each technique. Both were papillary RCCs and did not recur on follow-up. Of the 414 resected SRMs, 5% (20/414) were upstaged to pT3a after nephrectomy, and did not differ between coaxial and sequential groups (3%,8/231 vs. 7%,12/183; p = 0.14). There was no difference in the positive margins or disease recurrence (p = 0.82, 0.39).

conclusionsRMB with a coaxial needle was not associated with higher yield, lower tumor seeding, lower upstaging, or lower recurrence. Tumor seeding is rare, observed in only two patients with papillary RCC, occurring with either biopsy technique. Due to a lack of evidence for the superiority of one technique, availability and preference may guide the choice of biopsy technique. KEY POINTS: QuestionRisk of seeding after renal mass biopsies (RMB) remains a concern, and the overall risk of seeding and whether the coaxial technique mitigates that risk is unknown. Findings Seeding was exceedingly rare after RMB. There was no difference in seeding, upgrading, or recurrence between sequential and coaxial techniques. Clinical relevanceIt has been suggested that tumor seeding after RMB may be prevented using a coaxial needle. Our results have demonstrated that RMB with or without a coaxial needle is equally safe, and these were not associated with an increased risk of complications, needle tract seeding, or disease recurrence.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyKidney NeoplasmsNeoplasm SeedingAdultAgedFemaleHumansKidneyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesCoaxial techniqueRenal cell carcinomaRenal mass biopsySeeding

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.