Literature DB >> 18774473

Predicting growth of solid renal masses under active surveillance.

Paul L Crispen1, Yu-Ning Wong, Richard E Greenberg, David Y T Chen, Robert G Uzzo.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The natural history and growth rates of untreated solid enhancing renal tumors is being defined through active surveillance series. Serial radiographic evaluation of patients who are not surgical candidates or refuse surgical treatment provides an opportunity to characterize the growth of untreated enhancing renal tumors. Here we evaluate factors that may help predict radiographic growth during observation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our renal cancer database for enhancing renal masses that were radiographically observed for a period of at least 12 months. Variables examined included patient age, gender, lesion size on presentation, radiographic tumor characteristics, duration of active surveillance, linear growth rate, surgical pathology, development of new renal tumors, and stage progression.
RESULTS: One hundred nine patients with 124 sporadic enhancing renal tumors were identified undergoing a period of active surveillance of at least 12 months. Median patient age was 73 years (mean 69.8, range 35-87); 72% (78/109) of patients were males. Median duration of active surveillance was 26 months (mean 33.4, range 12-156). Multifocal disease was present in 9% (10/109) of patients on presentation, accounting for 20% (25/124) of all tumors. Tumor size on presentation was a median of 2.0 cm (mean 2.61, range 0.4-12.0). Overall median tumor growth rate was 0.21 cm/y (mean 0.28, range 1.4-2.47). Observed linear growth rates were independent of patient age, gender, tumor size on presentation, multifocality, and radiographic characteristics (solid versus cystic), P > 0.05. Of the patients initiating a period of active surveillance 36% (39/109) eventually underwent definitive therapy. Malignant pathology was present in 90% (35/39) of patients undergoing treatment. In patients continuing active surveillance [64% (70/109)], 2.9% (2/70) developed de novo renal lesions and 1.4% (1/70) developed metastatic disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Currently, no clinical predictors of tumor growth or disease progression have been identified, although, the risk of developing progressive disease over the short term appears low. Clinical and molecular markers of disease progression are needed prior to offering active surveillance to otherwise acceptable surgical candidates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18774473      PMCID: PMC2720098          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  22 in total

1.  Pathological stage does not alter the prognosis for renal lesions determined to be stage T1 by computerized tomography.

Authors:  William W Roberts; Sam B Bhayani; Mohamad E Allaf; Theresa Y Chan; Louis R Kavoussi; Thomas W Jarrett
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Management of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for nephrectomy--natural history, complications, and outcome.

Authors:  Gavin W A Lamb; Emma J Bromwich; Paul Vasey; Michael Aitchison
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 4.  The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature.

Authors:  Sam N Chawla; Paul L Crispen; Alexandra L Hanlon; Richard E Greenberg; David Y T Chen; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Growth characteristics of renal cortical tumors in patients managed by watchful waiting.

Authors:  Richard D Sowery; D Robert Siemens
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.344

Review 6.  Conservative management of incidental contrast-enhancing renal masses as safe alternative to invasive therapy.

Authors:  Michael J Wehle; David D Thiel; Steven P Petrou; Paul R Young; Igor Frank; Nolan Karsteadt
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 7.  Long-term survival of patients with unilateral sporadic multifocal renal cell carcinoma according to histologic subtype compared with patients with solitary tumors after radical nephrectomy.

Authors:  David S Dimarco; Christine M Lohse; Horst Zincke; John C Cheville; Michael L Blute
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Cystic renal cell carcinoma: biology and clinical behavior.

Authors:  Ken-Ryu Han; Nicolette K Janzen; Valerie C McWhorter; Hyung L Kim; Allan J Pantuck; Amnon Zisman; Robert A Figlin; Frederick J Dorey; Jonathan W Said; Arie S Belldegrun
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations on growth.

Authors:  M A Bosniak; B A Birnbaum; G A Krinsky; J Waisman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Cystic renal cell carcinoma is cured by resection: a study of 24 cases with long-term followup.

Authors:  F A Corica; K A Iczkowski; L Cheng; H Zincke; M L Blute; A Wendel; T J Sebo; R Neumann; D G Bostwick
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  21 in total

1.  Surgeon-specific factors affecting treatment decisions among Canadian urologists in the management of pT1a renal tumours.

Authors:  Alexandra Leora Millman; Kenneth T Pace; Michael Ordon; Jason Young Lee
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Optimal follow-up intervals in active surveillance of renal masses in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease.

Authors:  Fabio Pomerri; Giuseppe Opocher; Chiara Dal Bosco; Pier Carlo Muzzio; Gisella Gennaro
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-01-31       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  18-F fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography as a pathological grade predictor for renal clear cell carcinomas.

Authors:  Yoshifumi Noda; Masayuki Kanematsu; Satoshi Goshima; Natsuko Suzui; Yoshinobu Hirose; Kengo Matsunaga; Hironori Nishibori; Hiroshi Kondo; Haruo Watanabe; Hiroshi Kawada; Nobuyuki Kawai; Yukichi Tanahashi; Kyongtae T Bae
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis.

Authors:  Marc C Smaldone; Alexander Kutikov; Brian L Egleston; Daniel J Canter; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Michael A Jewett; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the differentiation of low and high grade clear cell renal carcinoma.

Authors:  F Cornelis; E Tricaud; A S Lasserre; F Petitpierre; J C Bernhard; Y Le Bras; M Yacoub; M Bouzgarrou; A Ravaud; N Grenier
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Kidney function outcomes following thermal ablation of small renal masses.

Authors:  Jay D Raman; Syed M Jafri; David Qi
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2016-05-06

7.  Enhancing renal tumors in patients with prior normal abdominal imaging: further insight into the natural history of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Paul L Crispen; Aldiana Soljic; Gregory Stewart; Alexander Kutikov; Daniel Davenport; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Multiphasic contrast-enhanced MRI: single-slice versus volumetric quantification of tumor enhancement for the assessment of renal clear-cell carcinoma fuhrman grade.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Holly G Delaney; Eithne M Delappe; Ya Wang; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Yongqiang Tan; Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Hedvig Hricak; Paul Russo; Oguz Akin
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Charlson score as a single pertinent criterion to select candidates for active surveillance among patients with small renal masses.

Authors:  François Audenet; Marie Audouin; Sarah J Drouin; Eva Comperat; Pierre Mozer; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; Arnaud Méjean; Olivier Cussenot; Shahrokh F Shariat; Morgan Rouprêt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Watchful waiting in the treatment of the small renal mass.

Authors:  K Clint Cary; Chandru P Sundaram
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009 Oct-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.