Purpose To assess the difference between renal mass biopsy (RMB) performed either before or during the ablation procedure. Methods A retrospective multicenter study was performed in patients with a cT1 renal mass treated with ablation between January 2007 and July 2019, including a search in the national pathology database for patients with a RMB planned for ablation. Patient and tumor characteristics and information on malignant, benign, and non-diagnostic biopsy results were collected to establish rates of overtreatment and number of ablations avoided in case of benign or non-diagnostic histology. Results RMB was performed in 714 patients, of which 231 patients received biopsy before planned ablation, and 483 patients at the time of ablation. Pathology results before ablation were malignant in 63% (145/231), benign in 20% (46/231) and non-diagnostic in 17% (40/231). Pathology results at the time of ablation were malignant in 67.5% (326/483), benign in 16.8% (81/483) and non-diagnostic in 15.7% (76/483), leading to a total of 32.5% of ablation of benign or non-diagnostic lesions. Of the patients with a benign biopsy obtained before ablation, 80.4% (37/46) chose not to undergo ablation. Patients with inconclusive biopsy before planned ablation chose an informed individualized approach including ablation, repeated biopsy, or no intervention in 56%, 34% and 10%. Conclusion This study emphasizes the importance of obtaining a biopsy prior to the ablation procedure in a separate session to lower the rate of potentially unnecessary ablations.

Objectives To analyse variation in clinical management of cT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the Netherlands related to surgical hospital volume (HV). Materials and methods Patients diagnosed with cT1 RCC during 2014–2020 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient and tumour characteristics were retrieved. Hospitals performing kidney cancer surgery were categorised by annual HV as low (HV < 25), medium (HV = 25–49) and high (HV > 50). Trends over time in nephron‐sparing strategies for cT1a and cT1b were evaluated. Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics of (partial) nephrectomies were compared by HV. Variation in applied treatment was studied by HV. Results Between 2014 and 2020, 10 964 patients were diagnosed with cT1 RCC. Over time, a clear increase in nephron‐sparing management was observed. The majority of cT1a underwent a partial nephrectomy (PN), although less PNs were applied over time (from 48% in 2014 to 41% in 2020). Active surveillance (AS) was increasingly applied (from 18% to 32%). For cT1a, 85% received nephron‐sparing management in all HV categories, either with AS, PN or focal therapy (FT). For T1b, radical nephrectomy (RN) remained the most common treatment (from 57% to 50%). Patients in high‐volume hospitals underwent more often PN (35%) for T1b compared with medium HV (28%) and low HV (19%). Conclusion HV is related to variation in the management of cT1 RCC in the Netherlands. The EAU guidelines have recommended PN as preferred treatment for cT1 RCC. In most patients with cT1a, nephron‐sparing management was applied in all HV categories, although differences in applied strategy were found and PN was more frequently used in high HV. For T1b, high HV was associated with less appliance of RN, whereas PN was increasingly used. Therefore, closer guideline adherence was found in high‐volume hospitals.

No abstract

No abstract