Literature DB >> 19076135

Can we avoid surgery in elderly patients with renal masses by using the Charlson comorbidity index?

Kevin M O'Connor1, Niall Davis, Gerry M Lennon, David M Quinlan, David W Mulvin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine the safety of surveillance for localized contrast-enhancing renal masses in elderly patients whose comorbidities precluded invasive management; to provide an insight into the natural history of small enhancing renal masses; and to aid the clinician in identifying those patients who are most suitable for a non-interventional approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective chart review of 26 consecutive patients (16 men and 10 women), who were followed for > or =1 year, with localized solid enhancing renal masses between 1998 and 2006. These patients were unfit or unwilling to undergo radical or partial nephrectomy. None had their tumours surgically removed. Study variables included age, presentation, tumour size, growth rate, Charlson comorbidity index (CMI) and available pathological data. RESULTS The mean (range) patient age was 78.14 (63-89) year, with a mean follow-up of 28.1 (12-72) months. The mean tumour size was 4.25 (2.5-8.7) cm at diagnosis. The tumour growth rate was 0.44 cm/year; among smaller masses (T1a) it was 0.15 cm/year, vs 0.64 cm/year in the larger masses (T1b and T2). The mean CMI was 2.96. There were 11 deaths overall; 10 patients died from unrelated illnesses. One death was directly attributable to metastatic renal cancer; this patient had an initial tumour diameter of 5.4 cm and a CMI of 6. All patients who died had a CMI of > or =3. CONCLUSIONS Elderly patients with small renal tumours (T1a) and comorbidity scores of > or =3 were more likely to die as a result of their comorbidities rather than the renal tumour. Surveillance of small renal masses appears to be a safe alternative in elderly patients who are poor surgical candidates, where the overall growth rate appears to be slow.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19076135     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08275.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  6 in total

1.  Sociodemographics and comorbidities influence decisions to undergo pancreatic resection for neoplastic lesions.

Authors:  Charbel Sandroussi; Chantelle Brace; Erin D Kennedy; Nancy N Baxter; Steven Gallinger; Alice C Wei
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Grading complications after transurethral resection of prostate using modified Clavien classification system and predicting complications using the Charlson comorbidity index.

Authors:  Swarnendu Mandal; Satya N Sankhwar; Rohit Kathpalia; Manish Kumar Singh; Manoj Kumar; Apul Goel; Vishwajeet Singh; Rahul Janak Sinha; Bhupender Pal Singh; Divakar Dalela
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 3.  Thinking beyond surgery in the management of renal cell carcinoma: the risk to die from renal cell carcinoma and competing risks of death.

Authors:  David Y T Chen; Robert G Uzzo; Rosalia Viterbo
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  [Active surveillance: concept for renal cell carcinoma?].

Authors:  I Tsaur; D Schilling; A Haferkamp
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Available active surveillance follow-up protocols for small renal mass: a systematic review.

Authors:  Giacomo Rebez; Nicola Pavan; M Carmen Mir
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-16       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  The Past, Present, and Future in Management of Small Renal Masses.

Authors:  Sarah C Ha; Haley A Zlomke; Nicholas Cost; Shandra Wilson
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 4.375

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.