MP22-09 DIAGNOSTIC NEEDLE BIOPSIES IN RENAL MASSES: PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN PERSPECTIVES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Epidemiology & Evaluation/Staging I1 Apr 2017MP22-09 DIAGNOSTIC NEEDLE BIOPSIES IN RENAL MASSES: PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN PERSPECTIVES Shay Golan, Paz Lotan, Shlomi Tapiero, Jack Baniel, Andrei Nadu, and Ofer Yossepowitch Shay GolanShay Golan More articles by this author , Paz LotanPaz Lotan More articles by this author , Shlomi TapieroShlomi Tapiero More articles by this author , Jack BanielJack Baniel More articles by this author , Andrei NaduAndrei Nadu More articles by this author , and Ofer YossepowitchOfer Yossepowitch More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.663AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The utility of renal mass biopsies (RMB) in the diagnosis and management of kidney tumors remains debatable. We assessed the patients and urologists preferences in this regard. METHODS Seventy-three patients diagnosed with renal tumors and 59 board-certified urologists were asked to participate in an interview-based study. Decision analysis was quantified using the standard gamble method to determine the minimal accepted accuracy (MAA) at which RMB would be favored as part of the diagnostic process. Clinical and demographic data with potential to affect participants preferences were analyzed. RESULTS At the time of study interview, 56 patients (77%) were referred for kidney surgery and 17 (23%) opted for surveillance. Overall, 59% of the patients were willing to accept some level of inaccuracy (1-20%), whereas 41% would refute a biopsy irrespective of their designated treatment. Anxiety associated with the possibility of missing cancer was the primary determinant (70%) for declining RMB among patients referred for surgery while fear of biopsy-associated complications was the primary reason (58%) to decline RMB among those undergoing surveillance. Having an academic degree was associated with acceptance of a lower accuracy threshold (p=0.03). Of the 59 participating urologists, 39% were reluctant to recommend RMB, primarily because of its inexorable non-diagnostic rate. CONCLUSIONS Most patients and urologists would favor a RMB to facilitate their definitive treatment decision. Diagnostic accuracy of 95% was acceptable by the majority of study participants. The utility of RMB as part of the diagnostic algorithm for renal tumors should be discussed with patients, emphasizing its potential benefits and limitations. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e259-e260 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Shay Golan More articles by this author Paz Lotan More articles by this author Shlomi Tapiero More articles by this author Jack Baniel More articles by this author Andrei Nadu More articles by this author Ofer Yossepowitch More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...