Minimally invasive biopsy in retroperitoneal tumors (Review)

Marcu,Radu  Dragos; Diaconu,Camelia Cristina; Constantin,Traian; Socea,Bogdan; Ionita‑Radu,Florentina; Mischianu,Dan  Liviu Dorel; Bratu,Ovidiu  Gabriel

doi:10.3892/etm.2019.8020

Minimally invasive biopsy in retroperitoneal tumors (Review)

Authors:
- Radu Dragos Marcu
- Camelia Cristina Diaconu
- Traian Constantin
- Bogdan Socea
- Florentina Ionita‑Radu
- Dan Liviu Dorel Mischianu
- Ovidiu Gabriel Bratu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, 050474 Bucharest, Romania, Gastroenterology Department, Emergency University Central Military Hospital, 010825 Bucharest, Romania
Published online on: September 18, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.8020
Pages: 5016-5020

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Minimally invasive biopsy procedures have proven over the years to be essential for obtaining a correct diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors, that allows proper therapeutical conduct. These procedures offer valuable tissue fragments for histopathological examination, that permits the distinction between benign and malignant tumors, identifying the tumors that can benefit from neo‑adjuvant treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy and those that have a direct surgical indication. We have searched the existing data regarding minimally invasive biopsy in retroperitoneal tumors using the PubMed database, in order to evaluate the role of this procedure in establishing a correct diagnosis, as well as to find out the risks of tumor cell seeding and local recurrence after needle biopsy. The risk of tumor cell seeding is very low (<2%) and in some cases, it is considered negligible (<0.5%). Compared to open biopsy, needle biopsy seems to be associated with a significantly lower risk of tumor cell seeding. According to the existing data, the incidence of needle track tumor cell seeding also depends on the histological type of the tumors. Image‑guided retroperitoneal biopsy has proven to be low cost, accessible, and a reliable procedure (in terms of diagnostic accuracy), usually associating with a low rate of complications and a low risk of tumor seeding. Several authors have underlined the importance of the retroperitoneal approach and the association with a co‑axial imaging technique in order to avoid potentially deadly complications.

View Figures

View References

1	Van Roggen JFG and Hogendoorn PC: Soft tissue tumours of the retroperitoneum. Sarcoma. 4:17–26. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Mehdi G, Maheshwari V, Afzal S, Ansari HA and Ahmad I: Image-guided fine-needle aspiration of retroperitoneal masses: The role of the cytopathologist. J Cytol. 30:36–41. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Das C, Sengupta M, Mukhopadhyay M and Saha AK: Critical clinical appraisal of the role of computed tomography-guided minimally invasive aspiration cytology in evaluation of retroperitoneal masses. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 35:60–65. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Guo Z, Kurtycz DF, De Las Casas LE and Hoerl HD: Radiologically guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy of pelvic and retroperitoneal masses: A retrospective study of 68 cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 25:43–49. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Micames C, Jowell PS, White R, Paulson E, Nelson R, Morse M, Hurwitz H, Pappas T, Tyler D and McGrath K: Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 58:690–695. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Paquin SC, Gariépy G, Lepanto L, Bourdages R, Raymond G and Sahai AV: A first report of tumor seeding because of EUS-guided FNA of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 61:610–611. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Roman A, Achimas-Cadariu P, Fetica B, Gata V and Seicean A: CT-guided procedures: An initial experience. Clujul Med. 91:427–434. 2018.PubMed/NCBI
8	Golse N, Ducerf C, Rode A, Gouillat C, Baulieux J and Mabrut JY: Transthoracic approach for liver tumors. J Visc Surg. 149:e11–e22. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Joudeh AA, Shareef SQ and Al-Abbadi MA: Fine-needle aspiration followed by core-needle biopsy in the same setting: Modifying our approach. Acta Cytol. 60:1–13. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Misra RK, Mitra S, Jain RK, Vahikar S, Bundela A and Misra P: Image-guided fine needle cytology with aspiration versus non-aspiration in retroperitoneal masses: Is aspiration necessary? J Pathol Transl Med. 49:129–135. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Briffod M, Gentile A and Hébert H: Cytopuncture in the follow-up of breast carcinoma. Acta Cytol. 26:195–200. 1982.PubMed/NCBI
12	VanderLaan PA: Fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy: An update on 2 common minimally invasive tissue sampling modalities. Cancer Cytopathol. 124:862–870. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Nasuti JF, Gupta PK and Baloch ZW: Diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of on-site evaluation of fine-needle aspiration specimens: Review of 5,688 cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 27:1–4. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Krogerus L and Kholová I: Cell block in cytological diagnostics: Review of preparatory techniques. Acta Cytol. 62:237–243. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Łukasiewicz E, Ziemiecka A, Jakubowski W, Vojinovic J, Bogucevska M and Dobruch-Sobczak K: Fine-needle versus core-needle biopsy - which one to choose in preoperative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts? Literature review. J Ultrason. 17:267–274. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Raghuveer CV, Leekha I, Pai MR and Adhikari P: Fine needle aspiration cytology versus fine needle sampling without aspiration. A prospective study of 200 cases. Indian J Med Sci. 56:431–439. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
17	Pinki P, Alok D, Ranjan A and Nanak Chand M: Fine needle aspiration cytology versus fine needle capillary sampling in cytological diagnosis of thyroid lesion. Iran J Pathol. 10:47–53. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
18	Monaco SE, Khalbuss WE and Pantanowitz L: Benign non-infectious causes of lymphadenopathy: A review of cytomorphology and differential diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 40:925–938. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Meyer L, Gibbons D, Ashfaq R, Vuitch F and Saboorian MH: Fine-needle aspiration findings in Castleman's disease. Diagn Cytopathol. 21:57–60. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Van Houdt WJ, Schrijver AM, Cohen-Hallaleh RB, Memos N, Fotiadis N, Smith MJ, Hayes AJ, Van Coevorden F and Strauss DC: Needle tract seeding following core biopsies in retroperitoneal sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 43:1740–1745. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Berger-Richardson D and Swallow CJ: Needle tract seeding after percutaneous biopsy of sarcoma: Risk/benefit considerations. Cancer. 123:560–567. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Barrientos-Ruiz I, Ortiz-Cruz EJ, Serrano-Montilla J, Bernabeu-Taboada D and Pozo-Kreilinger JJ: Are biopsy tracts a concern for seeding and local recurrence in sarcomas? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 475:511–518. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Sartorelli KH, Partrick D and Meagher DP Jr: Port-site recurrence after thoracoscopic resection of pulmonary metastasis owing to osteogenic sarcoma. J Pediatr Surg. 31:1443–1444. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Walsh GL and Nesbitt JC: Tumor implants after thoracoscopic resection of a metastatic sarcoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 59:215–216. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Hughes TM and Thomas JM: Sarcoma metastases due to iatrogenic implantation. Eur J Surg Oncol. 26:50–52. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Socea LI, Visan DC, Barbuceanu SF, Apostol TV, Bratu OG and Socea B: The antioxidant activity of some acylhydrazones with dibenzo[a,d][7]annulene moiety. Rev Chim (Bucharest). 69:795–797. 2018.
27	Radulescu A, Madan V, Aungurenci A, Bratu O, Farcas C, Dinu M and Mischianu D: Antibiotic resistant urinary tract infections in an urology ward. Rom J Mil Med. 118:20–22. 2015.
28	Spinu D, Bratu O, Popescu R, Marcu D, Radulescu A and Mischianu D: Clostridium difficile - an emerging plague. Rom J Mil Med. 118:12–15. 2015.
29	Lupu M, Caruntu A, Caruntu C, Papagheorghe LML, Ilie MA, Voiculescu V, Boda D, Constantin C, Tanase C, Sifaki M, et al: Neuroendocrine factors: The missing link in non melanoma skin cancer (Review). Oncol Rep. 38:1327–1340. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Neagu M, Caruntu C, Constantin C, Boda D, Zurac S, Spandidos DA and Tsatsakis AM: Chemically induced skin carcinogenesis: Updates in experimental models (Review). Oncol Rep. 35:2516–2528. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Boda D: Cellomics as integrative omics for cancer. Curr Proteomics. 10:237–245. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
32	Neagu M, Constantin C, Tanase C and Boda D: Patented biomarker panels in early detection of cancer. Recent Pat Biomark. 1:10–24. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
33	Boda D, Docea AO, Calina D, Ilie MA, Caruntu C, Zurac S, Neagu M, Constantin C, Branisteanu DE, Voiculescu V, et al: Human papilloma virus: Apprehending the link with carcinogenesis and unveiling new research avenues (Review). Int J Oncol. 52:637–655. 2018.PubMed/NCBI
34	Solomon I, Voiculescu VM, Caruntu C, Lupu M, Popa A, Ilie MA, Albulescu R, Caruntu A, Tanase C, Constantin C, et al: Neuroendocrine factors and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: An affair to remember. Dis Markers. 2018:97878312018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Lupu M, Caruntu A, Caruntu C, Boda D, Moraru L, Voiculescu V and Bastian A: Non-invasive imaging of actinic cheilitis and squamous cell carcinoma of the lip. Mol Clin Oncol. 8:640–646. 2018.PubMed/NCBI
36	Voiculescu VM, Caruntu C, Solomon I, Lupu M, Ilie MA, Boda D, Constantin C and Neagu M: Squamous cell carcinoma: Biomarkers and potential therapeutic targetsHuman Skin Cancers-Pathways, Mechanisms, Targets and Treatments. Blumenberg M: IntechOpen; London: pp. 135–159. 2018
37	Wilkinson MJ, Martin JL, Khan AA, Hayes AJ, Thomas JM and Strauss DC: Percutaneous core needle biopsy in retroperitoneal sarcomas does not influence local recurrence or overall survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 22:853–858. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Hwang SY, Warrier S, Thompson S, Davidson T, Yang JL and Crowe P: Safety and accuracy of core biopsy in retroperitoneal sarcomas. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 12:e174–e178. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI