4.6 Article

Grade Heterogeneity in Small Renal Masses: Potential Implications for Renal Mass Biopsy

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 193, Issue 1, Pages 36-40

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.06.067

Keywords

carcinoma, renal cell; biopsy; risk; neoplasm grading

Funding

  1. NIH [P30CA006973]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Understanding the degree of phenotypic heterogeneity in a small renal mass may have implications for interpreting renal mass biopsy data. In this study we quantify nuclear grade heterogeneity in small renal masses. Materials and Methods: Our institutional renal mass database was queried for patients with T1a (less than 4 cm) renal masses stratified by the criteria of imaging diameter less than 2 cm or 2 cm or greater, clear cell or papillary histology, low grade (Fuhrman 1-2) or high grade (Fuhrman 3-4) with tissue available for review. Four consecutive specimens were chosen from each of the 8 strata for a total of 32. All specimens were reanalyzed and the highest Fuhrman grade present in each 10x powered field was recorded. A case was classified as heterogeneous if multiple grades were present and as discordant if the highest Fuhrman grade was present in less than 50% of the specimen. Results: A median of 5 slides (IQR 3.5-7.5) and 59, 10x powered fields (IQR 34-109) were examined per patient. Overall 26 samples (81.3%) were heterogeneous, including 15 of 16 (93.8%) high grade specimens. Among all cases 10 (31.3%) were discordant and of high grade specimens 4 (25%) were discordant. Median fraction of low grade tissue in high grade specimens was 38.9% (IQR 12.2-57.2). Conclusions: The majority of small renal masses demonstrated considerable nuclear grade heterogeneity. The greatest degree of heterogeneity and discordance was observed in high grade tumors. One should consider these findings when interpreting renal mass biopsy data as the risk of under sampling high grade tumors may not be insignificant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available