What are the benefits and drawbacks to having a kidney tumour biopsy?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxine Tran
Keyword(s):  
2016 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 674-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Kockelbergh ◽  
Leyshon Griffiths

2017 ◽  
Vol 197 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick O. Richard ◽  
Lisa Martin ◽  
Luke Lavallée ◽  
Phil Violette ◽  
Maria Komisarenko ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. e2510-e2511
Author(s):  
J. Makevicius ◽  
G. Kazlauskas ◽  
M. Trakymas ◽  
A. Ulys ◽  
M. Miglinas ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e303
Author(s):  
C. Fiori ◽  
R. Bertolo ◽  
D. Amparore ◽  
S. De Cillis ◽  
G. Cattaneo ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick O. Richard ◽  
Lisa Martin ◽  
Luke T. Lavallée ◽  
Philippe D. Violette ◽  
Maria Komisarenko ◽  
...  

Introduction: Renal tumour biopsies (RTBs) can provide the histology of small renal masses (SRMs) prior to treatment decisionmaking. However, many urologists are reluctant to use RTB as a standard of care. This study characterizes the current use of RTB in the management of SRMs and identifies barriers to a more widespread adoption.Methods: A web-based survey was sent to members of the Canadian and Quebec Urological Associations who had registered email address (n=767) in June 2016. The survey examined physicians’ practice patterns, RTB use, and potential barriers to RTB. Chi-squared tests were used to assess for differences between respondents.Results: The response rate was 29% (n=223), of which 188 respondents were eligible. A minority of respondents (12%) perform RTB in >75% of cases, while 53% never perform or perform RTB in <25% of cases. Respondents with urological oncology fellowship training were more likely to request a biopsy than their colleagues without such training. The most frequent management-related reason for not using routine RTB was a belief that biopsy won’t alter management, while the most frequent pathology-related reason was the risk of obtaining a false-negative or a non-diagnostic biopsy.Conclusions: Adoption of RTBs remains low in Canada. Concerns about the accuracy of RTB and its ability to change clinical practice are the largest barriers to adoption. A knowledge translation strategy is needed to address these concerns. Future studies are also required in order to define where RTB is most valuable and how to best to implement it.


2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (7) ◽  
pp. 631-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Odharnaith O’Brien ◽  
Éanna Ryan ◽  
Ben Creavin ◽  
Michael E Kelly ◽  
Helen M Mohan ◽  
...  

BackgroundMicrosatellite instability is reflective of a deficient mismatch repair system (dMMR), which may be due to either sporadic or germline mutations in the relevant mismatch repair (MMR) gene. MMR status is frequently determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair proteins (MMRPs) on colorectal cancer (CRC) resection specimens. However, IHC testing performed on endoscopic biopsy may be as reliable as that performed on surgical resections.AimWe aimed to evaluate the reliability of MMR IHC staining on preoperative CRC endoscopic biopsies compared with matched-surgical resection specimens.MethodsA retrospective search of our institution’s histopathology electronic database was performed. Patients with CRC who had MMR IHC performed on both their preoperative endoscopic biopsy and subsequent resection from January 2010 to January 2016 were included. Concordance of MMR staining between biopsy and resection specimens was assessed.ResultsFrom 2000 to 2016, 53 patients had MMR IHC performed on both their preoperative colorectal endoscopic biopsy and resection specimens; 10 patients (18.87%) demonstrated loss of ≥1 MMRP on their initial endoscopic tumour biopsy. The remainder (81.13%) showed preservation of staining for all MMRPs. There was complete agreement in MMR IHC status between the preoperative endoscopic biopsies and corresponding resection specimens in all cases (κ=1.000, P<0.000) with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 69.15 to 100) and specificity of 100% (95% CI 91.78 to 100) for detection of dMMR.ConclusionEndoscopic biopsies are a suitable source of tissue for MMR IHC analysis. This may provide a number of advantages to both patients and clinicians in the management of CRC.


Author(s):  
Panagiotis D. Gikas ◽  
Timothy W.R. Briggs

♦ Bone and soft tissue tumours are rare and should therefore be assessed and treated in specialized centres♦ Clinical staging and pathological grading is used to classify the extent of a tumour♦ Clinical staging uses various imaging techniques, pathological grading requires tumour biopsy following clinical staging♦ The Enneking system is commonly used for surgical staging of bone and soft tissue tumours♦ Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for musculoskeletal tumours♦ The surgical margin describes the extent of the procedure♦ Intralesional margins describe a procedure that removes the tumour alone, radical margins may require removal of entire bone♦ Open incisional biopsy is the gold standard method for obtaining a representative specimen of tumour♦ Careful planning and good collaboration between surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists is crucial to avoid unnecessary or dangerous biopsy procedures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii83-iii83
Author(s):  
O Kalita ◽  
Z Sporikova ◽  
M Halaj ◽  
K Cwiertka ◽  
M Vaverka ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND The prognosis for patients with GBM remains dismal. The most aggressive multimodal therapy (maximally radical and safe tumour resection, followed by the Stupp protocol oncotherapy) has yielded the best treatment outcomes. Only a small proportion of patients initially undergo brain tumour biopsy. Our aim is to evaluate therapy results of biopsied GBM patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS We followed all glioma patients from June 1, 2006. Information on surgeries, patient clinical condition, imagings, and results of histological, immunohistochemical, molecular genetic, and cytogenetic investigations was gathered. For this study, we selected a group of biopsied GBM patients in a period from June 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016. Needle biopsy (stereotactic, or navigated) was advised for unresectable tumours, for patients with unfavourable clinical conditions (KS<60), and for older patients (with age being the only surrogate criterion). Whenever possible, the patients were recommended Stupp protocol oncotherapy. Clinical and MRI follow-up after surgery was carried out (OS, PFS) until the patient’s demise. RESULTS Sixty adult GBM patients (27 females and 33 males) with their age ranging from 30 to 85 years old and with a mean age of 66.8 years were enrolled in this study. The diagnosis of GBM was established by biopsy. Fourteen of them (23%) had radiotherapy only. Five patients (8%) were able to receive the Stupp protocol oncotherapy. Forty-one patients (69%) had an unfavourable physical condition which was a contraindication to radiotherapy or chemotherapy, respectively. The average OS was 3.8 months. A limited number of samples were available for IDH status investigation. All of the seventeen GBMs were IDH wild-type. CONCLUSION The initial surgical treatment strategy in GBM patients must be in the hands of an experienced neurosurgeon. Biopsy is required even when no further tumour-specific therapy is recommended. Regardless of the treatment strategy (resection or biopsy), multisite tumour sampling should be acquired. In our opinion, a decision to perform needle biopsy should be restricted to patients with unfavourable clinical conditions (age, KS, comorbidities, etc.), to large and deep-located brain tumours very often involving midline structures (corpus callosum, thalamus, basal ganglia), and to older patients. In accordance with these principles, we selected a small GBM patient group (12% of all GBM patients) with very limited life expectancy. The rationale for brain tumour biopsy is prevention of histological misdiagnosis and collection of biomarker data. But only the limited size of the tissue samples obtained was a significant obstacle to comprehensive cytogenetic investigation. We also recommend not to include biopsied GBM patients in studies with patients who had a radical resection. Supported by Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic, grant nr. NV19-04-00281.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document