Abstract
FNA of kidney masses have been performed for the diagnosis of mass lesions,confirmation of advanced neoplasia and metastases, and staging of tumors. In the past, the decision of whether to perform a nephrectomy used to be based on radiographic features and size, precluding the use of FNA. Today, where treatment is not limited to surgery alone, the indications for renal FNA have expanded. Most small renal masses are asymptomatic and are detected incidentally due to improved imaging techniques. Although most urologists agree that the standard of care for renal masses is surgery, if the patient is an elderly individual, or has comorbidities a preoperative FNA could be useful in guiding the management.When we look at data from large referral institutions such as Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, and the Cleveland Clinic approximately 30 %of the renal masses are benign [86---88]. Therefore, as astutely pointed out by Volpe et al.[3], there is a role for precise pretreatment characterization of the renal masses by FNA, which would decrease the unnecessary treatment for benign diseases and reduce the treatment-related mortality and morbidity in addition to reducing patient care costs.To date, urine cytology remains the gold standard for bladder cancer screening.It has been, and still is, the test against which all new tests are compared when evaluating potential bladder tumor markers. The answer to whether urine cytology possesses the optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity to retain consideration as the best screening device depends on the goals of the practice. Urine cytology has excellent specificity with only few false-positive cases. Its overall sensitivity (including both high grade and low grade lesions) is poor, but this is explained by poor criteria for identifying well-differentiated, low-grade urothelial carcinoma in cytology. The natural history of low grade lesions is that of multiple superficial recurrences in 70 - 80 % of patients, with only a minority ( 10-15 %)progressing to muscle invasive or metastatic disease [89]. Patients with low-grade urothelial carcinoma are at low risk for progression, they are monitored primarily for the development of a subsequent high grade tumor [90]. Therefore, as suggested by Koss, detection of new low-grade lesions may be clinically irrelevant as compared to early detection of disease progression [39]. Contrary to the low grade lesions, however, urine cytology often results in the identification of high-grade malignant cells even before a cystoscopically distinguishable gross lesion is present. In the last 20 years, a number of noninvasive test have been developed to detect urothelial carcinoma. Although some have been able to show a better sensitivity compared to cytology, only a few have been close to reaching the sensitivity seen in cytology. Most of these tests have not added much to the diagnostic evaluation. Combining some of the new markers with each other and/or cytologic evaluation may optimize their performance status.
Collapse