Top

Published in:

01-09-2019 | Original Article

Comparison of biopsy devices in upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Authors: Alberto Breda, Angelo Territo, Francesco Sanguedolce, Giuseppe Basile, Jose D. Subiela, Helena Vila Reyes, Olga Mayordomo Ferrer, Jose M. Gaya, Joan Palou

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 9/2019

Abstract

Introduction

A correct characterization of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) lesions is fundamental to appropriately select patients suitable for endoscopic management. We analyzed the diagnostic yield of three different biopsy tools for the histology evaluation of the UTUC. Furthermore, the concordance between biopsy grading and final UTUC pathology results at specimen (i.e., after ureterectomy or radical nephroureterectomy—RNU) was evaluated.

Materials and methods

Three different devices were evaluated: 3F biopsy forceps, 6F BIGopsy^® Backloading biopsy forceps and the 2.2F Nitinol Basket. Data were collected between January 2015 and October 2017 and retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the variables related to diagnosis.

Results

A total of 302 biopsies were taken: lesions could be characterized in 236 (78.2%) specimens by the pathologist. Positive biopsies for UTUC were found in 140 specimens. In 66 biopsies (21.8%), the quality of the tissue sampled was inadequate for a histological characterization; of these, 55 (83.3%) were taken using 3F forceps and 11 (16.7%) using BIGopsy forceps. No inadequate specimen arose using the 2.2F Nitinol Basket. Among 28 patients who underwent distal ureterectomy or RNU, the tumor was upgraded to high grade in 9 (32%), while in 19 (68%) the grading was confirmed.

Conclusion

In comparison to 3F forceps, the BIGopsy forceps showed to be more accurate in obtaining sufficient specimen for pathologic examination. In papillary lesions, the 2.2F Nitinol basket achieves a final histology characterization in 100% of the cases. For tumor < 2 cm, there is a high concordance between URS biopsy grade and final pathology (distal ureterectomy or RNU).

Rouprêt M et al (2018) European Association of Urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2017 update. Eur Urol 73(1):111–122CrossRefPubMed

Babjuk M et al (2017) EAU guidelines on non–muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol 71(3):447–461CrossRefPubMed

Margulis V et al (2009) Outcomes of radical nephroureterectomy: a series from the upper tract urothelial carcinoma collaboration. Cancer 115(6):1224–1233CrossRefPubMed

Grasso M, Fishman AI, Cohen J, Alexander B (2012) Ureteroscopic and extirpative treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a 15-year comprehensive review of 160 consecutive patients. BJU Int 110(11):1618–1626CrossRefPubMed

Rouprêt M et al (2007) Oncologic control after open or laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: a single center experience. Urology 69(4):656–661CrossRefPubMed

Wang L-J et al (2010) Multidetector computerized tomography urography is more accurate than excretory urography for diagnosing transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract in adults with hematuria. J Urol 183(1):48–55CrossRefPubMed

Straub J et al (2013) Ureterorenoscopic biopsy and urinary cytology according to the 2004 WHO classification underestimate tumor grading in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol 31(7):1166–1170CrossRefPubMed

Clements T et al (2012) High-grade ureteroscopic biopsy is associated with advanced pathology of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma tumors at definitive surgical resection. J Endourol 26(4):398–402CrossRefPubMed

Rojas CP et al (2013) Low biopsy volume in ureteroscopy does not affect tumor biopsy grading in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urol Oncol 31(8):1696–1700CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lucca I et al (2015) Kidney-sparing surgery for upper tract urothelial cancer. Curr Opin Urol 25(2):100–104CrossRefPubMed

11.

Lucca I et al (2015) Diagnosis and management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Hematol Oncol Clin N Am 29(2):271–288CrossRef

12.

Satava RM et al (2005) Identification and reduction of surgical error using simulation. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14(4):257–261CrossRefPubMed

13.

Dindo D et al (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Yakoubi R et al (2014) Radical nephroureterectomy versus endoscopic procedures for the treatment of localised upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis and a systematic review of current evidence from comparative studies. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(12):1629–1634CrossRefPubMed

15.

Colin P et al (2012) Comparison of oncological outcomes after segmental ureterectomy or radical nephroureterectomy in urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract: results from a large French multicentre study. BJU Int 110(8):1134–1141CrossRefPubMed

16.

Caoili EM et al (2002) Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology 222(2):353–360CrossRefPubMed

17.

Scolieri MJ et al (2000) Limitations of computed tomography in the preoperative staging of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urology 56(6):930–934CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kupershmidt M et al (2011) Evaluation of upper urinary tract tumors with portal venous phase MDCT: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(2):424–428CrossRefPubMed

19.

Shiraishi K et al (2003) Role of ureteroscopic biopsy in the management of upper urinary tract malignancy. Int J Urol 10(12):627–630CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kleinmann N et al (2013) Ureteroscopic biopsy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: comparison of basket and forcepss. J Endourol 27(12):1450–1454CrossRefPubMed

21.

Williams SK et al (2008) Correlation of upper-tract cytology, retrograde pyelography, ureteroscopic appearance, and ureteroscopic biopsy with histologic examination of upper-tract transitional cell carcinoma. J Endourol 22(1):71–76CrossRefPubMed

22.

Breda A et al (2017) Correlation between confocal laser endomicroscopy (Cellvizio ^®) and histological grading of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a step forward for a better selection of patients suitable for conservative management. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.05.008 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of biopsy devices in upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Authors: Alberto Breda
Angelo Territo
Francesco Sanguedolce
Giuseppe Basile
Jose D. Subiela
Helena Vila Reyes
Olga Mayordomo Ferrer
Jose M. Gaya
Joan Palou
Publication date: 01-09-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2586-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of biopsy devices in upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

Surgical treatment of large volume prostates: a matched pair analysis comparing the open, endoscopic (ThuVEP) and robotic approach

Prognostic value of unifocal and multifocal positive surgical margins in a large series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer

Trifecta outcome of ureteral reconstruction in iatrogenic injury and non-iatrogenic ureteral lesions: a 10-year experience at a tertiary referral center

Towards the future of upper tract urothelial carcinoma surveillance: lessons learnt from bladder cancer urinary biomarkers

Predicting posterior urethral obstruction in boys with lower urinary tract symptoms using deep artificial neural network

Redo-urethroplasty for the management of recurrent urethral strictures in males: a systematic review