Cancer Imaging (2009) 9, 44—55 DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2009.0005

REVIEW ARTICLE
Biopsy of renal masses: when and why
V. Anik Sahni and Stuart G. Silverman
Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Corresponding address: V. Anik Sahni, MD, Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Email: vsahni@partners.org
Date accepted for publication 23 March 2009
Abstract Percutaneous image-guided biopsy of renal masses is a safe and accurate procedure. Although once reserved for the diagnosis of unresectable renal cell carcinoma, metastases, lymphoma, and infection, today percutaneous imageguided biopsy has an expanded role. There is increasing awareness that a substantial proportion of small, solid renal masses are benign neoplasms. Although imaging can be used to diagnose most of them, some are incorrectly believed to represent renal cell carcinoma and unnecessary surgery may be performed. Based largely on advances in cytological techniques, percutaneous biopsy can be now be used to diagnose benign neoplasms and thus prevent them from being treated unnecessarily. Concurrent advances in percutaneous ablation have also promoted its use. As a result, there are 8 established indications for percutaneous biopsy, and reason to believe that the number of indications will expand further in the future. Keywords: Percutaneous image-guided biopsy; renal mass.

The current diagnostic paradigm for evaluating renal masses is primarily dependent on cross-sectional imaging modalities: ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. These techniques allow most renal masses to be evaluated and characterized accurately using specific imaging criteria[1,2]. As a result, when a renal mass is diagnosed with confidence, appropriate management can be instituted without further investigation. For example, when a mass demonstrates characteristic features of malignancy, surgical resection, if warranted, can be performed without a preoperative biopsy because the prior probability of disease is sufficiently high; a negative biopsy result would not likely alter management[3]. Similarly, published imaging criteria exist for some benign masses, such as simple cysts[1], hyperdense cysts[2] and fat-containing angiomyolipomas[4,5], which can be diagnosed with a high degree of confidence. Historically, therefore, renal mass biopsy has been reserved for a limited number of indications. These have included the diagnosis of metastatic disease, infection, and lymphoma. Biopsy has also been used to diagnose unresectable renal cell carcinoma and diagnose

masses in patients who are poor surgical candidates[6].
Percutaneous biopsy of renal masses is now being
increasingly used to differentiate between benign and malignant entities safely and accurately[7,8]. Biopsy has
been shown to alter clinical management in 60.5% of patients in whom a biopsy is performed[7]. As a result,
the approach to the diagnosis and management of renal
masses has changed. The growing need to perform a biopsy on renal masses
can be ascribed to several factors. More renal masses are being detected than ever before[9—11] largely due to the increased utilization of US, CT and MR imaging[12]. Just
as important, advances in imaging technology allow more small renal masses to be characterized as solid and there-
fore potentially malignant. Many small masses are being
identified in patients with no symptoms attributable to
the urinary tract. This has led not only to an increase in the incidence of renal cell carcinoma[13—15] but also a
corresponding increase in the incidence of benign renal neoplasms[16]. Concomitantly there has been an increas-
ing awareness in the literature that solid, enhancing, renal
masses cannot be presumptively diagnosed as renal cell

This paper is available online at http://www.cancerimaging.org. In the event of a change in the URL address, please use the DOI provided to locate the paper.

1470-7330/09/000001 þ 12

ß 2009 International Cancer Imaging Society

Renal masses: when and why to obtain a biopsy 45

carcinoma and proceed to surgery. In fact, multiple studies demonstrated that between 8% and 27% of surgically resected solid renal masses were benign[16—22]. Furthermore, based on a review of 2770 solid renal masses treated by radical nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery, the percentage of benign lesions increased as the size of the lesions decreased; 25% of masses less than 3 cm, 30% of masses less than 2 cm and 46% of masses less than 1 cm are benign[20]. Technological advances in the acquisition and interpretation of renal biopsy specimens has had a major impact on the diagnosis of renal neoplasms. Biopsy using fine needles (20 gauge or thinner) has been shown to be accurate in the diagnosis of renal masses[23,24], in large part due to enhancements in cytologic techniques (immunocytochemistry and cytogenetics) that have allowed for the accurate diagnosis of benign and malignant neoplasms[25—27] and in some cases, determination of renal cell carcinoma subtype and Fuhrman nuclear grade[28,29].
Biopsy performance
Technical details and complications
When performing a renal mass biopsy, consideration should be given to several technical factors that may affect the diagnostic and complication rates. The guidance modality that best depicts the lesion, adjacent structures and the needle-tip should be used to guide the biopsy. Each modality has its advantages and disadvantages[30—33]. US provides real-time imaging without ionizing radiation but may not visualize the lesion. CT is more expensive, however, usually allows better depiction of the mass and surrounding structures. MR imaging is seldom used but may be helpful to biopsy a mass that is not seen by US or CT[34]. Operator preference, and equipment availability will also play a part in deciding which imaging modality is chosen.
Typically fine (20-gauge or thinner) needle specimens are examined cytologically and large (19-gauge or larger) needle specimens histologically. Comparison of diagnostic effectiveness between fine and large needles is difficult. No direct comparative studies exist; many of the studies in which large and fine needles have been used do not assess the performance of each needle independently[8,35]. Fine needles have been shown to obtain a diagnosis in up to 93% of renal masses[24]. High rates of success have also been reported in studies in which only large needles were used[36,37]. Using 18-gauge needles alone, Caoili et al.[36] obtained a diagnosis in 92% of lesions and Neuzillet et al.[37] in 91%. Large needles may be more effective but probably carry a higher risk of bleeding and pseudoaneurysm formation compared with fine needles[36,38]. Overall, however, renal mass biopsy is a safe procedure; most hemorrhages are subclinical (detected as stranding or small hematoma at CT) and self-limited.

Given the lack of conclusive evidence that large needles confer a greater diagnostic effectiveness, the authors obtain fine-needle specimens initially and obtain a preliminary impression by a cytology technologist during the biopsy procedure. If the specimens are not adequate, large needle biopsies are obtained.
Needle track seeding is a potential complication of renal mass biopsy. The true incidence is difficult to ascertain. The scarcity of published reports[39—42] implies that it is a rare event, and probably not more common than other percutaneous biopsy sites. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence to suggest that use of large needles increases the risk of needle track seeding relative to fine needles.
Diagnostic effectiveness
The purpose of percutaneous biopsy is to obtain a tissue diagnosis safely. The biopsy result should have implications on patient management. Therefore obtaining a benign diagnosis is as important as a malignant one. The absence of malignant cells from a biopsy, however, does not necessarily confirm benignity and should be viewed with caution. Sensitivities and specificities for renal mass biopsy range from 80 to 92% and from 83 to 100% respectively[43]. False negative results are likely due to inaccurate needle placement or obtaining necrotic tissue[44]. False positive results are rare and are likely much less frequent today due to advances in cytology.
In some cases, renal cell carcinoma subtype and Fuhrman nuclear grade can be determined with a percutaneous biopsy. Current evidence suggests that successful subtyping can be performed with a high degree of success[28,37]. Determination of nuclear grade is more difficult; as biopsy specimens do not correlate as well with surgical specimens[37,45,46]. This information is of particular importance in incidentally detected small renal cell carcinomas. It can help to decide whether minimally invasive nephron-sparing techniques would be appropriate. For example, a confident diagnosis of a small lowgrade neoplasm would support using a minimally invasive approach, or perhaps observation.
Most angiomyolipomas can be diagnosed with imaging by identifying intralesional fat attenuation[4,5]. When an angiomyolipoma contains little or no fat, biopsy is the only way to diagnose them without surgery. Using cytologic techniques such as immunocytochemistry, a definitive diagnosis can be made[25,26]. For example, human melanosome-associated protein, HMB-45, and smooth muscle actin, are consistently expressed in angiomyolipomas and not in renal cell carcinoma[47]. Cytokeratin conversely is not seen in angiomyolipomas but is frequently present in renal cell carcinoma[6].
Oncocytoma may be diagnosed percutaneously in some cases. Cellular morphology coupled with immunocytochemical stains allows oncocytomas to be distinguished from oncocytic renal cell carcinoma, the most

46 V.A. Sahni, S.G. Silverman (a)

(b)

Figure 1 Incidental 2.1-cm enhancing mass in the interpolar region of the left kidney in a 72-year-old man. (a) Transverse unenhanced CT image shows isoattenuating mass (arrow) with no evidence of fat. (b) CT-guided percutaneous biopsy, shown on transverse CT image, was performed while the patient was prone with 25-gauge needles placed coaxially using a 20-gauge needle (arrow). Diagnosis was chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

common of which is chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (Fig. 1). The Hale’s colloidal iron stain is particularly helpful; when positive chromophobe renal cell carcinoma can be diagnosed confidently[27]. When absent, oncocytoma is favored. Cytokeratin 7 expression may help as an adjunct in differentiating the pathologies. It tends to show strong cytoplasmic staining with peripheral accentuation in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, whereas in oncocytoma the staining is usually weak or absent[48—52]. The usefulness of cytokeratin 20 seems limited given its highly variable expression[51—53]. A new stain, S100A1 seems to be positive in oncocytoma and not chromophobe renal cell carcinoma[54,55]. In other cases, oncocytoma cannot be differentiated from oncocytic renal cell carcinoma.
Indications for percutaneous biopsy of renal masses
In clinical practice, the authors have 8 established indications for renal mass biopsy[6,56]. These have been derived from published literature and a wealth of clinical experience[6,56]. The established indications include patients with masses that are likely malignant, but surgical resection is not indicated and patients with indeterminate masses that may be benign and therefore do not require treatment. A new, emerging indication includes patients with small (less than or equal to 3 cm) solid masses. The rationale for obtaining a biopsy of these masses is based principally on data that show that the smaller the mass the more likely it is benign. Although there may be multiple indications in a given patient, only one indication is needed to proceed with a biopsy.

Established indications
Patients with known extrarenal primary cancer
The identification of an enhancing renal mass in a patient with an extrarenal malignancy poses a diagnostic dilemma regarding whether the mass represents a primary renal cell malignancy or a metastatic lesion (Fig. 2). Metastatic lesions to the kidney are not rare; autopsy studies demonstrate renal metastases in 7—13% of patients with cancer[57,58]. The commonest malignancies to metastasize to the kidney are lung and lymphoma[44,59]. Despite this high propensity for renal metastases, Rybicki et al.[44] demonstrated that 31 (57%) of 54 renal masses in patients with extrarenal malignancies represented renal cell carcinoma. Accurate diagnosis is therefore imperative as there are major treatment implications[59]; most metastatic lesions require medical treatment, whereas renal cell carcinomas are resected or ablated. The sensitivity of biopsy in this cohort of patients has been shown to be 90%[44]. Imaging features in most cases cannot be used to differentiate metastases from renal cell carcinoma reliably. Although certain feature such as bilaterality and multiplicity may be suggestive of metastases, these features can also be seen in patients with renal cell carcinoma[60]. Cystic masses, however, are unlikely to represent metastases[44]. Recent evidence suggests that in patients with an extrarenal malignancy and no evidence of disease elsewhere, a renal mass is almost certainly renal cell carcinoma[61]. However, in patients with an extrarenal malignancy and extrarenal metastases, the renal mass cannot be assumed to be a metastasis.

Renal masses: when and why to obtain a biopsy 47 (a) (b)

Figure 2 Small 2.7-cm enhancing mass in the upper pole of the right kidney in an 81-year-old man with metastatic melanoma. (a) Transverse CT image shows enhancement of the mass (white arrow). Portocaval lymphadenopathy (*) and liver metastasis (black arrow) are present. (b) CT-guided percutaneous biopsy, shown on transverse CT image, was performed transhepatically with the patient prone with 25-gauge needles placed coaxially using a 20-gauge needle (arrow). Diagnosis was metastatic melanoma.

Patients with imaging findings suggestive of (VHL) gene which is characteristically associated with

unresectable renal cancer

clear-cell renal cell carcinoma[63].

Renal cell carcinoma may be unresectable due to either locally advanced disease or distant metastases. In patients with imaging findings highly suggestive of unresectable renal cell carcinoma, biopsy is important to obtain a diagnosis and institute appropriate management. It can be performed safely with a high sensitivity[44,62].
When the tumor is locally advanced, the renal mass is the only possible site of biopsy. If there are distant metastases, biopsy offers the opportunity to diagnose and stage the patient. However, a risk-to-benefit analysis needs to be undertaken to determine which site will provide the highest yield and the lowest risk to the patient. For example, obtaining a biopsy from a possible metastatic deposit to the lung carries a risk of pneumothorax, but a diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma also stages the patient.
Biopsy is also important for determining medical therapy. Chemotherapy for renal cell carcinoma historically has been ineffective. Immunotherapy with cytokines such as interferon alpha and interleukin 2 has demonstrated variable results[63]. Knowledge of tumor subtype, however, is helpful in predicting response. For example, interleukin 2 has produced higher response rates for clear-cell renal cell carcinoma compared with papillary renal cell carcinoma[64]. Tumor subtype is also important for emerging biologic therapies. New agents, such as Sorafenib (NexavarÕ; Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, West Haven, CT) and Sunitinib (SutentÕ; Pfizer, Inc., New York), target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is needed for angiogenesis. Both agents have been approved for use in metastatic renal cell carcinoma and validated in clinical trials[65,66]. VEGF is upregulated by dysfunction of the von Hippel-Lindau

Patients with comorbidity in whom surgery is planned
Patients with a suspected resectable renal cell carcinoma and medical comorbidities are a difficult group for the urologist to manage. Comorbidities often relate to pulmonary or cardiac disease, renal insufficiency or the presence of a solitary functioning kidney. To construct a safe and informed surgical plan, a formal risk-to-benefit analysis needs to be performed. This is dependent on not only assessing the surgical and anesthetic risk for the patient but also determining the likelihood that the mass represents renal cell carcinoma and not a benign neoplasm[9—11]. In these cases, biopsy provides a definitive diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma, and allows the surgery to be planned with more confidence[62].
Patients with a renal mass that may be caused by infection
Although renal infections can have varied radiologic manifestations[67], they may present as a mass-like abnormality and mimic a neoplasm[68]. Imaging features can be used to suggest that the mass is due to an infection. These include ill-defined margins on ultrasound[69] and ill-defined margins, perinephric stranding and patchy enhancement on CT[69,70]. When clinical and laboratory signs of infection are present, an infectious condition can be diagnosed with confidence. However, if signs and symptoms of a urinary infection are absent or occult[71], a renal tumor may be diagnosed inadvertently. Misinterpretation may lead to surgical resection rather than antibiotic therapy. In the small group of patients

48 V.A. Sahni, S.G. Silverman

in whom a mass-like abnormality may be due to an infection, percutaneous biopsy may help to provide the correct diagnosis.
Patients with a small (3 cm) hyperattenuating homogenously enhancing renal mass
Small hyperattenuating renal masses may occur due to a variety of causes[72]. Benign nonenhancing entities include hemorrhagic or proteinaceous cysts and hematomas. Benign lesions that demonstrate enhancement comprise vascular anomalies, angiomyolipomas and oncocytomas. Renal cell carcinoma and lymphoma are among the malignant causes.
Certain benign neoplasms, such as angiomyolipoma with minimal fat, oncocytoma, and metanephric adenoma, may be difficult to differentiate from renal cell carcinoma by imaging alone[73—77]. The identification of regions of fat attenuation on unenhanced CT is diagnostic of an angiomyolipoma[4,5]. Approximately 5% of angiomyolipomas, however, have no imageable fat component[73,78] and typically appear on CT as small hyperattenuating masses that enhance homogenously[73] (Fig. 3). Although this presentation is uncommon for a renal cell carcinoma[73] the two pathologies may be indistinguishable on imaging[73—75,79]. In these cases, MR imaging should be performed. MR imaging allows differentiation between angiomyolipoma with minimal fat and clear-cell carcinoma, which are hypointense[73] and hyperintense[80], respectively, on T2-weighted imaging. The papillary subtype of renal cell carcinoma is more difficult to differentiate from angiomyolipoma with minimal fat because it is also hypointense on T2-weighted imaging[80—82] (Fig. 4). Percutaneous biopsy is therefore required to differentiate angiomyolipoma with minimal fat and papillary renal cell carcinoma when an enhancing, T2 hypointense mass is encountered and does not demonstrate evidence of intratumoral fat.
Patients with a renal mass for which percutaneous ablation is considered
Percutaneous ablative techniques are becoming increasingly used to treat renal masses[83—90]. Ablation is nephron-sparing and therefore useful in certain highrisk patients including those with bilateral tumors, solitary kidneys and renal insufficiency. As experience increases and long-term follow-up emerges, the indications for renal mass ablation are becoming more diverse. Its use is now advocated in small unilateral renal cell carcinomas as an alternative to surgical resection[91].
Biopsy of a suspected renal cell carcinoma before ablation is necessary for several reasons. Unlike surgical resection whereby the entire surgical specimen can be examined pathologically, ablation destroys the neoplasm, and thus no tissue is available after the procedure for analysis. Therefore, the only opportunity for a tissue diagnosis is by a percutaneous biopsy. Furthermore, despite

dedicated renal CT and MR imaging, a proportion of lesions referred for ablation may be benign[92,93]. Tuncali et al.[93] demonstrated that 37% of masses referred for ablation were benign. Benign pathologies included angiomyolipomas with minimal fat, focal bacterial pyelonephritis and benign complicated cysts. Treating a benign lesion with percutaneous ablation inadvertently has important implications. Not only is the treatment inappropriate and exposes the patient to unnecessary risks but the patient is labeled with a diagnosis of cancer, and subjected to lifelong clinical and radiologic follow-up.
Long-term effectiveness of ablation is not yet known. To validate the technique relative to surgery, the pathology of lesions treated must be known prospectively by preprocedural biopsy. Unfortunately several clinical trials of percutaneous ablation[84,85,87,88] included renal masses that were diagnosed solely based on imaging. If many of the lesions treated were in fact benign, the efficacy of ablation was overestimated.
Indeterminate cystic renal mass
The Bosniak classification of cystic renal masses is well established and widely used[1]. Historically it has stratified these masses into two broad groups; types I and II are nonsurgical lesions and types III and IV are typically resected surgically[1]. There is increasing risk of malignancy from type I (virtually 0%) to type IV (near 100%)[94—97]. Resection of type IV lesions is indicated due to the high risk of malignancy[94—97]. Type III lesions are indeterminate and cannot be definitely diagnosed as benign on imaging alone. Although the risk of malignancy is highly variable (31—100%)[94—97], resection is advocated so as not to miss a cancer. Biopsy in this group has been traditionally seen to be of limited use[1] as false negative biopsy results are common. Indeed, examination of the entire lesion at pathology is sometimes needed to render a histopathologic diagnosis. However, some patients are not surgical candidates, and therefore biopsy may be useful.
If malignant cells are not retrieved from the cyst wall or fluid, the cyst is not necessarily benign and a specific diagnosis is often difficult to make[98]. In addition, atypical cells or hemorrhagic aspirates are not necessarily conclusive of malignancy[98]. Studies evaluating the usefulness of percutaneous biopsy have shown a range of accuracies[44,99,100]. Rybicki et al.[44] demonstrated a sensitivity of only 33% whereas Harasinghani et al.[99] managed to render a diagnosis in 100% of renal cystic lesions. Given this wide spectrum of test performance, biopsy is unlikely to become routine in the diagnosis of Bosniak type III cystic lesions. The authors, however, find it useful in patients with surgical comorbidities. A malignant biopsy result allows surgery to proceed with confidence. A negative result may be definitive when a specific entity such as oncocytoma or metanephric adenoma is diagnosed. Otherwise, a negative result

Renal masses: when and why to obtain a biopsy 49 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure 3 Small 1-cm hyperattenuating enhancing mass in the upper pole of the right kidney in a 46-year-old woman incidentally noted on chest CT. (a) Transverse unenhanced CT image shows hyperattenuating mass (arrow) with no evidence of fat. (b) Transverse CT image shows enhancement of the mass from 50 HU to 112 HU (arrow). (c) CT-guided percutaneous biopsy, shown on transverse CT image, was performed transhepatically with the patient prone using 25-gauge needles (arrow) placed coaxially using a 20-gauge needle. (d,e) Photomicrographs of immunocytochemicalstained specimens are positive for (d) smooth muscle actin and weakly positive for (e) HMB-45, which are both shown as brown areas. Diagnosis was angiomyolipoma with minimal fat.

may provide more confidence in following patients. Biopsy results that simply report no malignant cells should be viewed with caution and do not necessarily represent a benign lesion.

Multiple solid renal masses
Multiple solid renal masses can be due to several diagnoses including metastases and primary lymphoma. In both

50 V.A. Sahni, S.G. Silverman (a)

(b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 4 Small 1.3-cm hyperattenuating enhancing mass in the interpolar region of the right kidney in a 68-year-old man. (a) Transverse unenhanced CT image shows a hyperattenuating mass (arrow) with no evidence of fat. (b) Transverse T2-weighted MR image shows that the mass is hypointense (arrow). (c) Transverse T1-weighted post contrast MR image shows enhancement of the mass (arrow). (d) CT-guided percutaneous biopsy, shown on transverse CT image, was performed with 25-gauge needles placed coaxially using a 20-gauge needle (arrow). (e) Photomicrograph reveals characteristic morphologic features of papillary renal cell carcinoma, which are demonstrated by blue areas.

Renal masses: when and why to obtain a biopsy 51

conditions, however, clinical history and extrarenal find-
ings are usually supportive. For example, metastases to
the kidney are usually accompanied by metastases elsewhere[61]. Likewise, the kidney is usually involved with lymphoma secondarily[101]; primary lymphoma of the kidney is rare[102].
Hereditary conditions can result in multiple solid renal
masses. A diverse group of hereditary syndromes
exist that may result in renal cell cancer that is typically multiple and bilateral[60]. In addition, hereditary renal
cell carcinoma usually occurs at an earlier age than the more common sporadic variant[103]. A fine balance needs
to be reached between successfully eradicating these
tumors and the need to spare functioning renal tissue
to avoid dialysis. Nephron-sparing techniques such as
partial nephrectomy and ablation are often used in com-
bination. Not all hereditary syndromes, however, produce
malignant masses. Renal oncocytosis results in multiple
oncocytomas that are benign and do not require treatment[104]. Percutaneous biopsy is therefore crucial to
establish the correct diagnosis before definitive treatment is undertaken[56].

Emerging indication
Small (3 cm) solid masses
The principal criterion for determining the role of biopsy in this emerging indication is the size of the solid renal mass. Surgical data have consistently demonstrated that as the size of a solid renal mass decreases, the probability of it representing a benign entity increases[16—22]. Benign masses most commonly resected include angiomyolipomas with minimal fat and oncocytomas[19,20]. Rarer benign neoplasms include metanephric adenoma, papillary adenoma, and leiomyoma (Fig. 5). These masses have historically undergone unnecessary surgical resection because they cannot be distinguished from malignant lesions by imaging alone[73—77]. Radical nephrectomy is associated with quantifiable perioperative complications and risks[105]. These risks have been reduced by using nephron-sparing techniques such as partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation. They also preserve renal function[105]. The appropriateness, however, of any treatment of benign lesions is questionable regardless of the technique. By performing biopsy

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5 Incidental 2.5-cm enhancing mass in the upper pole of the right kidney in a 42-year-old woman. (a) Transverse CT image shows enhancement of the mass (arrow). (b) CT-guided percutaneous biopsy, shown on transverse CT image, was performed with 18-gauge needles (arrow) placed coaxially using a 17-gauge introducer. (c,d) Photomicrographs of immunohistochemical-stained specimens are positive for (c) smooth muscle actin (orange staining) and (d) desmin (brown staining). Diagnosis was leiomyoma.

52 V.A. Sahni, S.G. Silverman

of small solid renal masses, a significant proportion of benign lesions may be confirmed, obviating the need for treatment. It is unclear whether a biopsy should be taken from all small renal masses and what the size cut off should be. Because the likelihood of a benign etiology increases with decreasing mass size, biopsy would be more appropriate in smaller masses, however, masses less than 1 cm are difficult to target for biopsy.
The increasing treatment of incidentally detected small renal masses is an area of continued controversy[106]. Mixed results regarding the biologic aggressiveness of small renal cell carcinomas with respect to size have been reported[20,107,108], however, consensus suggests that smaller renal cell carcinomas tend to be of lower grade and more indolent. Although limited data exist on their natural history[109,110], many grow slowly if at all, and some may never result in mortality. Surgical comorbidity, patient preference, life expectancy and age are factors that may be used to decide on management. The indolent nature of some small renal cell carcinomas have prompted some to consider observation in lieu of resection or ablation[111,112]. Percutaneous biopsy can help determine the most appropriate management plan by providing information such as cell subtype and Fuhrman nuclear grade, which can be used to judge the tumor’s potential for growth and metastases.
Conclusion
Although imaging is the primary diagnostic tool in the evaluation of renal masses, in many specific clinical scenarios, percutaneous renal mass biopsy plays a crucial role in determining clinical management. Unlike years past, biopsy can now be used to diagnose benign neoplasms that previously underwent inadvertent surgical resection. The burgeoning field of tumor ablation has necessitated the use of percutaneous biopsy: the only means to render a tissue diagnosis. Biopsy may be helpful in characterizing some small renal cancers as indolent, thus allowing a watchful waiting approach to be considered in selected patients.
References
[1] Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986; 158: 1—10.
[2] Bosniak MA. The small (3.0 cm) renal parenchymal tumor: detection, diagnosis and controversies. Radiology 1991; 179: 307—17.
[3] Curry NS, Reinig J, Schabel SI, Ross P, Vujic I, Gobien RP. An evaluation of the effectiveness of CT vs. other imaging modalities in the diagnosis of atypical renal masses. Invest radiol 1984; 19: 447—54.
[4] Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, Hulnick DH, Horii S, Raghavendra BN. CT diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma: the importance of detecting small amounts of fat. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151: 497—501.
[5] Bosniak MA. Angiomyolipoma (hamartoma) of the kidney: a preoperative diagnosis is possible in virtually case. Urol Radiol 1981; 3: 135—42.

[6] Silverman SG, Gan YU, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Cibas ES. Renal masses in the adult patient: the role of percutaneous biopsy. Radiology 2006; 240: 6—22. doi:10.1148/ radiol.2401050061. PMid:16709793.
[7] Maturen KE, Nghiem HV, Caoili EM, Higgins EG, Wolf Jr JS, Wood Jr. DP. Renal mass core biopsy: accuracy and impact on clinical management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 563—70. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.0220. PMid:17242269.
[8] Wood BJ, Khan MA, McGovern F, Harisinghani M, Hahn PF, Mueller PR. Imaging guided biopsy of renal masses: indications, accuracy and impact on clinical management. J Urol 1999; 161: 1470—4. doi:10.1016/S00225347(05)68929-X. PMid:10210375.
[9] Zagoria RJ. Imaging of small renal masses: a medical success story. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 945—55.
[10] Rodriguez-Rubio FI, Diez-Caballero F, Martin-Marquina A, Abad JI, Berian JM. Incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma. Br J Urol 1996; 78: 29—32.
[11] Thompson IM, Peek M. Improvement in survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma: the role of the serendipitiously detected tumor. J Urol 1988; 140: 487—90.
[12] Motzer RJ, Bander NH, Nanus DM. Renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 865—75. doi:10.1056/ NEJM199609193351207. PMid:8778606.
[13] Homma Y, Kawabe K, Kitamura T, et al. Increased incidental detection and reduced mortality in renal cancer: recent retrospective analysis at eight institutions. Int J Urol 1995; 2: 77—80. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.1995.tb00428.x. PMid:7553292.
[14] Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, et al. Rising incidence of renal cell carcinoma in the United States. JAMA 1999; 281: 1628—31. doi:10.1001/jama.281.17.1628. PMid:10235157.
[15] Jayson M, Sanders H. Increased incidence of serendipitiously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology 1998; 51: 203—5. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00506-2. PMid:9495698.
[16] Ozen H, Colowick A, Freiha FS. Incidentally discovered solid renal masses: what are they? Br J Urol 1993; 72: 274—6.
[17] Beland MD, Mayo-Smith WW, Dupuy DE, Cronan JJ, DeLellis RA. Diagnostic yield of 58 consecutive imagingguided biopsies of solid renal masses: should we biopsy all that are indeterminate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 792—7. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.0356. PMid:17312070.
[18] Duchene DA, Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Sagalowsky AI, Koeneman KS. Histopathology of surgically managed renal tumors: analysis of contemporary series. Urology 2003; 62: 827—30. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00658-7. PMid:14624902.
[19] Li G, Cuilleron M, Gentil-Perret A, Tostain J. Characteristics of image-detected solid renal masses: implication for optimal treatment. Int J Urol 2004; 11: 63—7. doi:10.1111/j.14422042.2004.00750.x. PMid:14706008.
[20] Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 2003; 170: 2217—20. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000095475.12515.5e. PMid:14634382.
[21] McKiernan J, Yossepowitch O, Kattan MW, et al. Partial nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors: pathological findings and impact on outcome. Urology 2002; 60: 1003—9. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01967-2. PMid:12475658.
[22] Silver DA, Morash C, Brenner P, Campbell S, Russo P. Pathological findings at the time of nephrectomy for renal mass. Ann Surg Oncol 1997; 4: 570—4. doi:10.1007/BF02305538. PMid:9367023.
[23] Helm CW, Burwood RJ, Harrison NW, Melcher DW. Aspiration cytology of solid renal tumors. Br J Urol 1983; 55: 249—53. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.1983.tb03290.x. PMid:6850236.
[24] Murphy WM, Zambroni BR, Emerson LD, Moinuddin S, Lee LH. Aspiration biopsy of the kidney: simultaneous collection of cytological and histological specimens. Cancer 1985; 56:

Renal masses: when and why to obtain a biopsy 53

200—5. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19850701)56:15200::AIDCNCR282056013443.0.CO;2-L. PMid:2988734. [25] Bonzanini M, Pea M, Martignoni G, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma: fine needle aspiration cytology and immunocytological characterization. Pathology 1994; 26: 170—5. doi:10.1080/00313029400169421. PMid:8090589. [26] Gupta RK, Nowitz M, Wakefield SJ. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of renal angiomyolipoma: report of a case with immunocytochemical and electron microscopic findings. Diagn Cytopathol 1998; 18: 297—300. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10970339(199804)18:45297::AID-DC1043.0.CO;2-E. PMid:9557267. [27] Liu J, Fanning CV. Can renal oncocytomas be distinguished from renal cell carcinoma on fine-needle aspiration specimens? A study of conventional smears in conjunction with ancillary studies. Cancer 2001; 93: 390—7. [28] Renshaw AA, Lee KR, Madge R, Granter SR. Accuracy of fine needle aspiration in distinguishing subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 987—94. [29] Zhou M, Roma A, Magi-Galluzi C. The usefulness of immunohistochemical markers in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms. Clin Lab Med 2005; 25: 247—57. doi:10.1016/ j.cll.2005.01.004. PMid:15848735. [30] Lechevallier E, Andre M, Barriol D, et al. Fine-needle percutaneous biopsy of renal masses with helical CT guidance. Radiology 2000; 216: 506—10. [31] Johnson PT, Nazarian LN, Feld RI, et al. Sonographically guided renal mass biopsy: indications and efficacy. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 749—53. [32] Tang S, Li JH, Lui SL, Chan TM, Cheung IK, Lai KN. Freehand, ultrasound-guided percutaneous renal biopsy: experience from a single operator. Eur J Radiol 2002; 41: 65—9. doi:10.1016/S0720-048X(01)00439-9. PMid:11750155. [33] Silverman SG, Collick BD, Figueira MR, et al. Interactive MRguided biopsy in an open-configuration MR imaging system. Radiology 1995; 197: 175—81. [34] Lu DS, Silverman SG, Raman SS. MR-guided therapy: applications in the abdomen. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1999; 7: 337—48. [35] Richter F, Kasabian NG, Irwin Jr. RJ, Watson RA, Lang EK. Accuracy of diagnosis by guided biopsy of renal mass lesions classified indeterminate by imaging studies. Urology 2000; 55: 348—52. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00468-9. PMid:10699608. [36] Caoili EM, Bude RO, Higgins EJ, Hoff DL, Nghiem HV. Evaluation of sonographically guided percutaneous core biopsy of renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 373—8. [37] Neuzillet Y, Lechevallier E, Andre M, Daniel L, Coulange C. Accuracy and clinical role of fine needle percutaneous biopsy with computerized tomography guidance of small (less than 4.0 cm) renal masses. J Urol 2004; 171: 1802—5. [38] Gazelle GS, Haaga JR, Rowland DY. Effect of needle gauge, level of anticoagulation, and target organ on bleeding associated with aspiration biopsy: work in progress. Radiology 1992; 183: 509—13. [39] Bush WH, Leland L, Gibbons RP. Needle tract seeding of renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1977; 129: 725—7. [40] Kiser GC, Totonchy M, Barry JM. Needle tract seeding after percutaneous renal adenocarcinoma aspiration. J Urol 1986; 136: 1292—3. [41] Shenoy PD, Lakhar BN, Ghosh MK, Patil UD. Cutaneous seeding of renal carcinoma by Chiba needle aspiration biopsy: case report. Acta Radiol 1991; 32: 50—2. [42] Wehle MJ, Grabstald H. Contraindications to needle aspiration of a solid renal mass: tumor dissemination by renal needle aspiration. J Urol 1986; 136: 446—8. [43] Herts BR, Baker ME. The current role of percutaneous biopsy in the evaluation of renal masses. Semin Urol Oncol 1995; 13: 254—61.

[44] Rybicki FJ, Shu KM, Cibas ES, Fielding JR, van

Sonnenberg E, Silverman SG. Percutaneous biopsy of renal

masses: sensitivity and negative predictive value stratified by

clinical setting and size of masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol

2003; 180: 1281—7.

[45] Cajulis RS, Katz RL, Dekmezian R, el Naggar A, Ro JY. Fine

needle aspiration biopsy of renal cell carcinoma: cytological

parameters and their concordance with histology and flow cyto-

metric data. Acta Cytol 1993; 37: 367—72.

[46] Lebret T, Poulain JE, Molinie V, et al. Percutaneous core

biopsy for renal masses: indications, accuracy and results. J

Urol 2007; 178: 1184—8. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.155.

PMid:17698122.

[47] Nelson CP, Sanda MG. Contemporary diagnosis and manage-

ment of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol 2002; 168: 1315—25.

doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64440-0. PMid:12352384.

[48] Mathers ME, Pollock AM, Marsh C, O’Donnell M.

Cytokeratin 7: a useful adjunct in the diagnosis of chromophobe

renal cell carcinoma. Histopathology 2002; 40: 563—7.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2559.2002.01397.x. PMid:12047768.

[49] Leroy X, Moukassa D, Copin MC, Saint F, Mazeman E,

Gosselin B. Utility of cytokeratin 7 for distinguishing

chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma.

Eur Urol 2000; 37: 484—7. doi:10.1159/000020172.

PMid:10765081.

[50] Adley BP, Papavero V, Sugimura J, Teh BT, Yang XJ.

Diagnostic value of cytokeratin 7 and parvalbumin in differen-

tiating chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocy-

toma. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2006; 28: 228—36.

[51] Wu SL, Kothari P, Wheeler TM, Reese T, Connelly JH.

Cytokeratins 7 and 20 immunoreactivity chromophobe renal cell

carcinomas and renal oncocytomas. Mod Pathol 2002; 15:

712—17.

doi:10.1097/01.MP.0000017566.29755.8A.

PMid:12118108.

[52] Geramizadeh B, Ravanshad M, Rahsaz M. Useful markers

for differential diagnosis of oncocytoma, chromophobe

renal cell carcinoma and conventional renal cell carcinoma.

Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2008; 51: 167—71. doi:10.4103/

0377-4929.41641. PMid: .

[53] Stopyra GA, Warhol MJ, Multhaupt HA. Cytokeratin 20

immunoreactivity in renal oncocytomas. J Histochem

Cytochem 2001; 49: 919—20.

[54] Rocca PC, Brunelli M, Gobbo S, et al. Diagnostic utility of

S100A1 expression in renal cell neoplasm: an immunohisto-

chemical and quantitative RT-PCR study. Mod Pathol 2007;

20: 722—8. doi:10.1038/modpathol.3800828. PMid:17483815.

[55] Li G, Barthelemy A, Feng G, et al. S100A1: a powerful marker

to differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal

oncocytoma. Histopathology 2007; 50: 642—7. doi:10.1111/

j.1365-2559.2007.02655.x. PMid:17394501.

[56] Silverman SG, Gan YU, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Cibas ES.

Renal mass biopsy in the new millennium: an important diag-

nostic procedure. RSNA Categorical Course in Diagnostic

Radiology 2006, p. 219—36.

[57] Bracken RB, Chica G, Johnson DE, Luna M. Secondary renal

neoplasm: an autopsy study. South Med J 1979; 72: 806—7.

[58] Abrams H, Spira R, Goldstein N. Metastasis in carcinoma:

analysis of 1000 autopsied cases. Cancer 1950; 3: 74—85.

doi:10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1574::AID-CNCR2820030111 

43.0.CO;2-7. PMid:15405683.

[59] Gattuso P, Ramzy I, Truong LD, et al. Utilization of fine-

needle aspiration in the diagnosis of metastatic tumors to the

kidneys. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 21: 35—8. doi:10.1002/

(SICI)1097-0339(199907)21:1535::AID-DC1043.0.CO;2-#.

PMid:10405806.

[60] Choyke PL, Glenn GM, Walther MM, Zbar B, Linehan MW.

Hereditary renal cancers. Radiology 2003; 226: 33—46.

doi:10.1148/radiol.2261011296. PMid:12511666.

54 V.A. Sahni, S.G. Silverman

[61] Sanchez-Ortiz RF, Madsen LT, Bermejo CE, et al. A renal mass in the setting of a nonrenal malignancy. When is a tumor biopsy appropriate? Cancer 2004; 101: 2195—201.
[62] Niceforo JR, Coughlin BF. Diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma: value of fine-needle aspiration cytology in patients with metastases or contraindications to nephrectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 1303—5.
[63] Costa LJ, Drabkin HA. Renal cell carcinoma: new developments in molecular biology and potential targeted therapies. Oncologist 2007; 12: 1404—15. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.1212-1404. PMid:18165617.
[64] Upton MP, Parker RA, Youmans A, Connolly C, Atkins MB. Histological predictors of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) response to interleukin-2 based therapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 22: 851A.
[65] Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 125—34. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa060655. PMid:17215530.
[66] Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 115—24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa065044. PMid:17215529.
[67] Demertzis J, Menias C. State of the art: imaging of renal infection. Emergency Radiology 2007; 14: 13—22. doi:10.1007/ s10140-007-0591-3. PMid:17318482.
[68] Rosenfield AT, Glickman MG, Taylor KJ, Crade M, Hodson J. Acute focal bacterial nephritis (acute lobar nephronia). Radiology 1979; 132: 553—61.
[69] Lee JK, McClennan BL, Melson GL, Stanley RJ. Acute focal bacterial nephritis: emphasis on gray scale sonography and computed tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1980; 135: 87—92.
[70] McKinstry CS. Acute lobar nephronia. Br J Radiol 1985; 58: 1217—19.
[71] Kurowski K. The woman with dysuria. Am Fam Physician 1998; 57: 2155—70.
[72] Silverman SG, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Jinzaki M, Cibas ES. Hyperattenuationg renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation. Radiographics 2007; 27: 1131—43. doi:10.1148/rg.274065147. PMid:17620471.
[73] Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Narimatsu Y, et al. Angiomyolipoma: imaging findings in lesions with minimal fat. Radiology 1997; 205: 497—502.
[74] Sherman JL, Hartman DS, Friedman AC, Madewell JE, Davis CJ, Goldman SM. Angiomyolipoma: computed tomographic-pathological correlation of 17 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981; 137: 1221—6.
[75] Sant GR, Heaney JA, Ucci Jr. AA, Sarno RC, Meares Jr. EM. Computed tomographic findings in renal angiomyolipoma: an histological correlation. Urology 1984; 24: 293—6. doi:10.1016/ 0090-4295(84)90365-0. PMid:6474646.
[76] Chao DH, Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Freedland SJ, Said JW, Belldegrun AS. Changing concepts in the management of renal oncocytoma. Urology 2002; 59: 635—42. doi:10.1016/S00904295(01)01630-2. PMid:11992832.
[77] Fielding JR, Visweswaran A, Silverman SG, Granter SR, Renshaw AA. CT and ultrasound features of metanephric adenoma in adults with pathological correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23: 441—4. doi:10.1097/00004728199905000-00020. PMid:10348452.
[78] Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, Cho KS. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology 2004; 230: 677—84. doi:10.1148/ radiol.2303030003. PMid:14990834.
[79] Sant GR, Ayers DK, Bankoff MS, Mitcheson HD, Ucci Jr. AA. Fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol 1990; 143: 999—1001.
[80] Shinmoto H, Yuasa Y, Tanimoto A, et al. Small renal cell carcinoma: MRI with pathological correlation. J Magn Reson

Imaging 1998; 8: 690—4. doi:10.1002/jmri.1880080327. PMid:9626888. [81] Sussman SK, Glickstein MF, Krzymowski GA. Hypointense renal cell carcinoma: MR imaging with pathological correlation. Radiology 1990; 177: 495—7. [82] Pedrosa I, Chou MT, Ngo L, et al. MR classification of renal masses with pathological correlation. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 365—75. doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0757-0. PMid:17899106. [83] Silverman SG, Tuncali K, vanSonnenberg E, et al. Renal tumors: MR imaging-guided percutaneous cryotherapy — initial experience in 23 patients. Radiology 2005; 236: 716—24. doi:10.1148/radiol.2362041107. PMid:16040927. [84] Shingleton WB, Sewell Jr. PE. Percutaneous renal tumor cryoablation with magnetic resonance imaging guidance. J Urol 2001; 165: 773—6. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66523-8. PMid:11176465. [85] Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Wood BJ, Goldberg SN, McDougal WS, Mueller PR. Radio-frequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma: early clinical experience. Radiology 2000; 217: 665—72. [86] Mayo-Smith WW, Dupuy DE, Parikh PM, Pezzullo JA, Cronan JJ. Imaging-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of solid renal masses: techniques and outcomes of 38 treatment sessions in 32 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 1503—8. [87] Pavlovich CP, Walther MM, Choyke PL, et al. Percutaneous radio frequency ablation of small renal tumors: initial results. J Urol 2002; 167: 10—15. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65371-2. PMid:11743264. [88] Roy-Choudhury SH, Cast JE, Cooksey G, Puri S, Breen DJ. Early experience with radiofrequency ablation of small solid renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 1055—61. [89] Liang P, Wang Y, Zhang D, Yu X, Gao Y, Ni X. Ultrasound guided percutaneous microwave ablation for small renal cancer: initial experience. J Urol 2008; 180: 844—8. doi:10.1016/ j.juro.2008.05.012. PMid:18635230. [90] Wu F, Wang ZB, Chen WZ, Bai J, Zhu H, Qiao TY. Preliminary experience using high intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of patients with advanced stage renal malignancy. J Urol 2003; 170: 2237—40. doi:10.1097/ 01.ju.0000097123.34790.70. PMid:14634387. [91] Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG. Exise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma-a meta-analysis and review. J Urol 2008; 179: 1227—33. doi:10.1016/ j.juro.2007.11.047. PMid:18280512. [92] Heilbrun ME, Zagoria RJ, Garvin AJ, et al. CT-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of renal tumors before treatment with percutaneous ablation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 1500—5. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.0389. PMid:17515368. [93] Tuncali K, vanSonnenberg E, Shankar S, Mortele KJ, Cibas E, Silverman SG. Evaluation of patients referred for percutaneous ablation of renal tumors: importance of a preprocedural diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 575—82. [94] Aronson S, Frazier HA, Baluch JD, Hartman DS, Christenson PJ. Cystic renal masses: usefulness of the Bosniak classification. Urol Radiol 1991; 13: 83—90. doi:10.1007/BF02924596. PMid:1897073. [95] Brown WC, Amis Jr. ES, Kaplan SA, Blaivas JG, Axelrod SL. Renal cystic lesions: predictive value of preoperative computerized tomography (abstr). J Urol 1989; 141: 426A. [96] Cloix P, Martin X, Pangaud C, et al. Surgical management of complex renal cysts: a series of 32 cases. J Urol 1996; 156: 28—30. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65928-7. PMid:8648823. [97] Curry NS, Cochran ST, Bissada NK. Cystic renal masses: accurate Bosniak classification requires adequate renal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 339—42. [98] Renshaw AA, Granter SR, Cibas ES. Fine-needle aspiration of the kidney. Cancer 1997; 81: 71—88. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-

Renal masses: when and why to obtain a biopsy 55

0142(19970425)81:2571::AID-CNCR143.0.CO;2-H. PMid:9126135. [99] Harisinghani MG, Maher MM, Gervais DA, et al. Incidence of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses (Bosniak category III): should imaging-guided biopsy precede surgery? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 755—8. [100] Lang EK, Macchia RJ, Gayle B, et al. CT-guided biopsy of indeterminate renal cystic masses (Bosniak 3 and 2F): accuracy and impact on clinical management. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2518—24. [101] Urban BA, Fishman EK. Renal lymphoma: CT patterns with emphasis on helical CT. Radiographics 2000; 20: 197—212. [102] Stallone G, Infante B, Manno C, Campobasso N, Pannarale G, Schena FP. Primary lymphoma does exist: case report and review of the literature. J Nepherol 2000; 13: 367—72. [103] Phillips JL, Pavlovich CP, Walther M, Ried T, Linehan WM. The genetic basis of renal epithelial tumors: advances in research and its impact on prognosis and therapy. Curr Opin Urol 2001; 11: 463—69. doi:10.1097/00042307-200109000-00003. PMid:11493766. [104] Tickoo SK, Reuther VE, Amin MB, et al. Renal oncocytosis: a morphological study of 14 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1999; 23: 1094—101. doi:10.1097/00000478199909000-00013. PMid:10478670.

[105] Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Torres VE, Zincke H. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75: 1236—42. doi:10.4065/75.12.1236. PMid:11126830.
[106] Bosniak MA, Rofsky NM. Problems in the detection and characterization of small renal masses. Radiology 1996; 198: 638—41.
[107] Bosniak MA, Birnbaum BA, Krinsky GA, Waisman J. Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations on growth. Radiology 1995; 197: 589—97.
[108] Hsu RM, Chan DY, Siegelman SS. Small renal cell carcinomas: correlation of size with tumor stage, nuclear grade, and histological subtype. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 551—7.
[109] Rendon RA, Stanietzky N, Panzarella T, et al. The natural history of small renal masses. J Urol 2000; 164: 1143—7. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67129-7. PMid:10992354.
[110] Bosniak MA. Observation of small incidentally detected renal masses. Semin Urol Oncol 1995; 13: 267—72.
[111] Klaver S, Joniau S, Van Poppel H. Surveillance as an option for the treatment of small renal masses. Adv Urol. doi:10.1155/ 2008/705958.
[112] Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 2008; 249: 16—31. doi:10.1148/radiol.2491070783. PMid:18796665.