Literature DB >> 16952619

Pathological features of renal neoplasms classified by size and symptomatology.

Bruce Schlomer1, Robert S Figenshau, Yan Yan, Ramakrishna Venkatesh, Sam B Bhayani.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We examined the relationship between tumor size and pathological findings in a contemporary series of surgical renal lesions and we characterized the relationship of incidental and symptomatic tumors to pathological findings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients treated surgically for renal lesions suspicious for malignancy between March 2000 and May 2005. Specimens were examined for a gross and microscopic description. Statistical analysis was used to determine the correlation of size and symptomatology.
RESULTS: A total of 349 renal masses from 331 patients were identified. Of the 349 renal masses 56 (16.0%) were benign, 289 (82.8%) were renal cell carcinoma and 4 (1.1%) were other malignancies. The percent of malignant tumors increased from 72.1% for those less than 2 cm to 93.7% for those greater than 7 cm (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.65). Of the 349 renal masses 258 (73.9%) were discovered incidentally and 91 (26.1%) were symptomatic. Mean size of incidental and symptomatic tumors was 3.7 and 6.2 cm, respectively (p < 0.001). When comparing T1 incidental and symptomatic tumors, there was no significant difference in the overall frequency of malignancy. When comparing T2 incidental and symptomatic tumors, the groups had similar malignancy rates (90.9% and 100%, respectively, p = 0.16). However, symptomatic lesions showed an increased incidence of high grade malignancy (78.4% vs 40.9%, p = 0.012).
CONCLUSIONS: Smaller renal tumors are more likely to be benign or be a lower grade of malignancy. T1 renal tumors are more likely to be detected incidentally than T2 tumors. When T1 incidental and symptomatic tumors were compared, there was no difference between the malignancy rates. However, when T2 incidental and symptomatic tumors were compared, symptomatic tumors were more likely to be high grade malignancy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16952619     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  27 in total

1.  Renal mass biopsy to guide treatment decisions for small incidental renal tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Pari V Pandharipande; Debra A Gervais; Rebecca I Hartman; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Adam S Feldman; Peter R Mueller; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Challenging treatment decision-making in older urologic cancer patients.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Gilles Albrand; François Rozet; Hervé Lang; Elena Paillaud; Pierre Mongiat-Artus
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  The role of imaging in the active surveillance of small renal masses.

Authors:  P G K Wagstaff; P J Zondervan; J J M C H de la Rosette; M P Laguna
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Renal cancer at unenhanced CT: imaging features, detection rates, and outcomes.

Authors:  Stacy D O'Connor; Stuart G Silverman; Laila R Cochon; Ramin K Khorasani
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-07

5.  Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Distinguishes Malignancy in T1-Hyperintense Small Renal Masses.

Authors:  Daniel R Ludwig; David H Ballard; Anup S Shetty; Cary L Siegel; Motoyo Yano
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Tumour location as a predictor of benign disease in the management of renal masses.

Authors:  Ross J Mason; Mohamed Abdolell; Ricardo A Rendon
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Trends in renal tumor surgery delivery within the United States.

Authors:  Lori M Dulabon; William T Lowrance; Paul Russo; William C Huang
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Urinary ultrasonography in screening incidental renal cell carcinoma: is it obligatory?

Authors:  Ahmet Hakan Haliloglu; Omer Gulpinar; Eriz Ozden; Yasar Beduk
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 2.370

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of pre-operative imaging findings in presumed clinical T1a renal cell carcinomas.

Authors:  Kazufumi Nakashima; Yasuhide Kitagawa; Kouji Izumi; Atsushi Mizokami; Toshifumi Gabata; Mikio Namiki
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 10.  Watchful waiting for small renal masses.

Authors:  Kamal Mattar; Michael A S Jewett
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.