Open Versus Percutaneous Approach of Renal Tumor Biopsy at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital: A Single-center Experience

Luki Ertandri; Agus Rizal A.H. Hamid; Meilania Saraswati; Chaidir A. Mochtar; Rainy Umbas

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2021.6038

Authors

Luki Ertandri Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
Agus Rizal A.H. Hamid Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
Meilania Saraswati Department of Pathology Anatomy, Medical Faculty, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
Chaidir A. Mochtar Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
Rainy Umbas Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9299-226X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.6038

Keywords:

Renal tumor biopsy, Open approach, Percutaneous approach, Comparative analysis, Complications

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Renal tumor biopsy is beneficial as it is capable of distinguishing between histological types of renal tumor; hence, it plays an important role in deciding the best therapy regimen.

AIM: This study aims to evaluate the clinical experiences of renal biopsy in Cipto Mangunkusumo National Referral Hospital (RSCM), with both a percutaneous and open approach. It also aims to analyze the indications, results, intraoperative information, and complications of the two approaches.

METHODS: This study was conducted using the retrospective cohort design; meanwhile, data were collected from RSCM from 1990 to 2019. The biopsy sample was taken using percutaneous and open renal biopsy, while comparative analysis was done between the two biopsy approaches.

RESULTS: Data were collected from 33 patients that underwent renal biopsy from 1990 to 2019. Majority of the cases were diagnosed as unresectable renal tumor, while histological examination found clear cell carcinoma in most of the cases (73%). Furthermore, the open approach showed longer duration and higher blood loss compared to percutaneous technique with median 60 (30–120) versus 30 (5–60) min (p < 0.001) and 100 (5–650) versus 2 (1–5) ml (p < 0.001), respectively. In general, complications were reported to be low for both techniques.

CONCLUSION: Based on the results, percutaneous renal biopsy has similar efficacy and complications rates in tumor sampling for histopathology together with open approach. However, there were significant differences in the duration and blood loss; hence, percutaneous biopsy is more favorable.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Ghali F, Patel SH, Derweesh IH. Current status of immunotherapy for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Oncol. 2019;2019:7309205. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7309205 PMid:31057615 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7309205

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-24. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492 PMid:30207593 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

Ozur Y, Saadettin E, Erdem K, Bulent S, Cagatay G, Taner D, et al. A preoperative prognostic model predicting recurrence-free survival for patients with kidney cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43(1):63-6. PMid:23159766 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hys192

Tsimafayeu I, Zolotareva T, Varlamo S, Zukov R, Petkau V, Masbich M. Five-year survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the russian federation: Results from the RENSUR5 registry. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:e1069-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.07.017 PMid:28882737 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.07.017

Muglia VF, Prando A. Renal cell carcinoma: Histological classification and correlation with imaging findings. Radiol Bras. 2015;48(3):166-74. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2013.1927 PMid:26185343 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2013.1927

NCCN CLinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Kidney Cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2019.

Ljunberg B, Albiges K, Bensalah K, Bex A, Giles RH, Hora M, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: EAU guidelines. Eur Urol. 2019; 75(5):799-810. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.011

Tomaszewski JJ, Uzzo RG, Smaldone MC. Heterogeneity and renal mass biopsy: A review of its role and reliability. Cancer Biol Med. 2014;11(3):162-72. PMid:25364577

Luciano RL, Moeckel GW. Update on the native kidney biopsy: Core curriculum. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;73(3):404-15. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.10.011 PMid:30661724 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.10.011

Herrera-Caceres JO, Finelli A, Jewett MA. Renal Tumor Biopsy: Indicators, Technique, Safety, Accuracy Results, and Impact on Treatment Decision Management. World J Urol. 2019;37(3):437-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2373-9 PMid:30022406 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2373-9

Richard PO, Jewett MA, Bhatt JR, Kachura JR, Evans AJ, Zlotta AR, et al. Renal tumor biopsy for small renal masses: A single-center 13-year experience. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1007-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.004 PMid:25900781 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.004

Shannon BA, Cohen RJ, de Bruto H, Davies RJ. The value of preoperative needle core biopsy for diagnosing benign lesions among small, incidentally detected renal masses. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1257-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.12.009 PMid:18707712 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.030

Volpe A, Finelli A, Gill IS, Jewett MA, Martignoni G, Polascik TJ, et al. Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):491-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.009

Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, Hofmann F, Stewart F, Norrie J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):660-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.043 PMid:26323946 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.043

Rabbani MA, Memon GM, Ahmad B, Memon S, Tahir SA, Thir S. Percutaneous renal biopsy results: A retrospective analysis of 511 consecutive cases. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2012;23(3):614-8. PMid:22569458

Ha SB, Kwak C. Current status of renal biopsy for small renal masses. Korean J Urol. 2014;55(9):568-73. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.9.568 PMid:25237457 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.9.568

Leveridge MJ, Finelli A, Kachura JR, Evans A, Chung H, Shiff DA, et al. Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondiagnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):578-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.021 PMid:21704449 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.021

Miyake M, Fukui S, Gotoh D, Matsumura Y, Samma S, Matsumoto Y, et al. The diagnostic utility of retroperitoneoscopic tissue biopsy for unresectable retroperitoneal lesions excluding urogenital cancers. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-019-1581-0 PMid:30777073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-019-1581-0

Hamid AR, et al. Pedoman Tata Laksana Kanker Ginjal. 2th ed. Indonesia: Penerbit Ikatan Ahli Urologi Indonesia; 2019.

Stec AA, Stratton KL, Kaufman MR, Chang SS, Milam DF, Herrell SD, et al. Open renal biopsy: Comorbidities and complications in a contemporary series. BJU Int. 2010;106(1):102- 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2009.09015.x PMid:19874299 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09015.x