Cost Comparisons between Different Techniques of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses

Rahul Dutta, Zhamshid Okhunov, Simone L. Vernez, Kamaljot Kaler, Anjalie T. Gulati, Ramy F. Youssef, Kari Nelson, Yair Lotan, Jaime Landman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the costs associated with ultrasound (US)-guided hospital-based (UGHB), CT-guided hospital-based (CTG), and US-guided office-based (UGOB) percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) for small renal masses (SRMs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patient demographics, tumor characteristics, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores, and cost data of patients undergoing PRB for SRM at our institution from May 2012 to September 2015. Cost data, including facility costs, professional fees, and pathology, were obtained from the departments of urology, radiology, and pathology. Results: A total of 78 patients were included in our analysis: 19, 31, and 28 UGHB, CTG, and UGOB, respectively. There was no difference in age, gender distribution, or tumor size among the three groups (p-values 0.131, 0.241, and 0.603, respectively). UGOB tumors had lower R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (p = 0.008). There were no differences in nondiagnostic rates between the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB groups [4 (21%), 5 (16%), and 6 (21%)] (p = 0.852). There were no differences in final tumor treatment strategies utilized among the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB groups (p = 0.447). There were 0, 2 (6%), and 0 complications in the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB biopsy groups. Total facility costs were $3449, $3280, and $1056 for UGHB, CTG, and UGOB PRB, respectively (p <0.0001). There was no difference between the urologist's and radiologist's professional fees (p = 0.066). Total costs, including facility costs, pathology fees, and professional fees, were $4598, $4470, and $2129 for UGHB, CTG, and UGOB renal biopsy, respectively (p <0.0001). Conclusion: For select patients with less anatomically complex, exophytic, and posteriorly located tumors, UGOB PRB provides equivalent diagnostic and complication rates while being significantly more cost-effective than either UGHB or CTG renal biopsy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S28-S33
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume30
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2016

Fingerprint

Kidney
Biopsy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Fees and Charges
Neoplasms
Pathology
Age Distribution
Urology
Radiology
Demography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Dutta, R., Okhunov, Z., Vernez, S. L., Kaler, K., Gulati, A. T., Youssef, R. F., ... Landman, J. (2016). Cost Comparisons between Different Techniques of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses. Journal of Endourology, 30, S28-S33. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0015

Cost Comparisons between Different Techniques of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses. / Dutta, Rahul; Okhunov, Zhamshid; Vernez, Simone L.; Kaler, Kamaljot; Gulati, Anjalie T.; Youssef, Ramy F.; Nelson, Kari; Lotan, Yair; Landman, Jaime.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 30, 01.05.2016, p. S28-S33.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dutta, R, Okhunov, Z, Vernez, SL, Kaler, K, Gulati, AT, Youssef, RF, Nelson, K, Lotan, Y & Landman, J 2016, 'Cost Comparisons between Different Techniques of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses', Journal of Endourology, vol. 30, pp. S28-S33. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0015
Dutta, Rahul ; Okhunov, Zhamshid ; Vernez, Simone L. ; Kaler, Kamaljot ; Gulati, Anjalie T. ; Youssef, Ramy F. ; Nelson, Kari ; Lotan, Yair ; Landman, Jaime. / Cost Comparisons between Different Techniques of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses. In: Journal of Endourology. 2016 ; Vol. 30. pp. S28-S33.
@article{9c2a64d1152d4c44abce6f48e6993f9b,
title = "Cost Comparisons between Different Techniques of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the costs associated with ultrasound (US)-guided hospital-based (UGHB), CT-guided hospital-based (CTG), and US-guided office-based (UGOB) percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) for small renal masses (SRMs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patient demographics, tumor characteristics, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores, and cost data of patients undergoing PRB for SRM at our institution from May 2012 to September 2015. Cost data, including facility costs, professional fees, and pathology, were obtained from the departments of urology, radiology, and pathology. Results: A total of 78 patients were included in our analysis: 19, 31, and 28 UGHB, CTG, and UGOB, respectively. There was no difference in age, gender distribution, or tumor size among the three groups (p-values 0.131, 0.241, and 0.603, respectively). UGOB tumors had lower R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (p = 0.008). There were no differences in nondiagnostic rates between the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB groups [4 (21{\%}), 5 (16{\%}), and 6 (21{\%})] (p = 0.852). There were no differences in final tumor treatment strategies utilized among the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB groups (p = 0.447). There were 0, 2 (6{\%}), and 0 complications in the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB biopsy groups. Total facility costs were $3449, $3280, and $1056 for UGHB, CTG, and UGOB PRB, respectively (p <0.0001). There was no difference between the urologist's and radiologist's professional fees (p = 0.066). Total costs, including facility costs, pathology fees, and professional fees, were $4598, $4470, and $2129 for UGHB, CTG, and UGOB renal biopsy, respectively (p <0.0001). Conclusion: For select patients with less anatomically complex, exophytic, and posteriorly located tumors, UGOB PRB provides equivalent diagnostic and complication rates while being significantly more cost-effective than either UGHB or CTG renal biopsy.",
author = "Rahul Dutta and Zhamshid Okhunov and Vernez, {Simone L.} and Kamaljot Kaler and Gulati, {Anjalie T.} and Youssef, {Ramy F.} and Kari Nelson and Yair Lotan and Jaime Landman",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2016.0015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "S28--S33",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost Comparisons between Different Techniques of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy for Small Renal Masses

AU - Dutta, Rahul

AU - Okhunov, Zhamshid

AU - Vernez, Simone L.

AU - Kaler, Kamaljot

AU - Gulati, Anjalie T.

AU - Youssef, Ramy F.

AU - Nelson, Kari

AU - Lotan, Yair

AU - Landman, Jaime

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the costs associated with ultrasound (US)-guided hospital-based (UGHB), CT-guided hospital-based (CTG), and US-guided office-based (UGOB) percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) for small renal masses (SRMs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patient demographics, tumor characteristics, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores, and cost data of patients undergoing PRB for SRM at our institution from May 2012 to September 2015. Cost data, including facility costs, professional fees, and pathology, were obtained from the departments of urology, radiology, and pathology. Results: A total of 78 patients were included in our analysis: 19, 31, and 28 UGHB, CTG, and UGOB, respectively. There was no difference in age, gender distribution, or tumor size among the three groups (p-values 0.131, 0.241, and 0.603, respectively). UGOB tumors had lower R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (p = 0.008). There were no differences in nondiagnostic rates between the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB groups [4 (21%), 5 (16%), and 6 (21%)] (p = 0.852). There were no differences in final tumor treatment strategies utilized among the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB groups (p = 0.447). There were 0, 2 (6%), and 0 complications in the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB biopsy groups. Total facility costs were $3449, $3280, and $1056 for UGHB, CTG, and UGOB PRB, respectively (p <0.0001). There was no difference between the urologist's and radiologist's professional fees (p = 0.066). Total costs, including facility costs, pathology fees, and professional fees, were $4598, $4470, and $2129 for UGHB, CTG, and UGOB renal biopsy, respectively (p <0.0001). Conclusion: For select patients with less anatomically complex, exophytic, and posteriorly located tumors, UGOB PRB provides equivalent diagnostic and complication rates while being significantly more cost-effective than either UGHB or CTG renal biopsy.

AB - Purpose: To compare the costs associated with ultrasound (US)-guided hospital-based (UGHB), CT-guided hospital-based (CTG), and US-guided office-based (UGOB) percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) for small renal masses (SRMs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patient demographics, tumor characteristics, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores, and cost data of patients undergoing PRB for SRM at our institution from May 2012 to September 2015. Cost data, including facility costs, professional fees, and pathology, were obtained from the departments of urology, radiology, and pathology. Results: A total of 78 patients were included in our analysis: 19, 31, and 28 UGHB, CTG, and UGOB, respectively. There was no difference in age, gender distribution, or tumor size among the three groups (p-values 0.131, 0.241, and 0.603, respectively). UGOB tumors had lower R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (p = 0.008). There were no differences in nondiagnostic rates between the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB groups [4 (21%), 5 (16%), and 6 (21%)] (p = 0.852). There were no differences in final tumor treatment strategies utilized among the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB groups (p = 0.447). There were 0, 2 (6%), and 0 complications in the UGHB, CTG, and UGOB biopsy groups. Total facility costs were $3449, $3280, and $1056 for UGHB, CTG, and UGOB PRB, respectively (p <0.0001). There was no difference between the urologist's and radiologist's professional fees (p = 0.066). Total costs, including facility costs, pathology fees, and professional fees, were $4598, $4470, and $2129 for UGHB, CTG, and UGOB renal biopsy, respectively (p <0.0001). Conclusion: For select patients with less anatomically complex, exophytic, and posteriorly located tumors, UGOB PRB provides equivalent diagnostic and complication rates while being significantly more cost-effective than either UGHB or CTG renal biopsy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84969674557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84969674557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2016.0015

DO - 10.1089/end.2016.0015

M3 - Article

C2 - 26915901

AN - SCOPUS:84969674557

VL - 30

SP - S28-S33

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

ER -