Mesut Remzi1, Elchin Javadli, Mehmet Ozsoy. 1. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. mRemzi@gmx.at
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recently, small renal masses (SRMs) (< or =4 cm) are found more frequently, especially in the elderly and co-morbid patients. Standard treatment for SRMs is nephron-sparing surgery (NSS). New techniques like energy ablation and surveillance have been introduced. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overview of treatment options for SRMs, based mainly on the meta-analyses available for NSS, cryoablation, radio-frequency ablation (RFA), and surveillance. RESULTS: NSS for SRMs is the standard therapy with excellent cancer-specific survival rates up to 97%. Cryoablation was mainly performed laparoscopically, and RFA mainly percutaneously. Pretreatment biopsies were used frequently for cryoablation (80%) and less frequently for RFA (50%). Primary failure rate for cryoablation was 4.8% and for RFA 13%. Major complication rates for both procedures are around 5%. Based on 6-month post-ablative biopsies, non-contrast enhancement seems to be an effective surrogate marker after cryoablation, but not after RFA. Follow-up after energy ablation is too short to draw final conclusion. Data on surveillance are based on small, retrospective data with insufficient follow-up. Growth patterns during follow-up do not correlate with the underlying tumour entity. CONCLUSION: Standard therapy for SRMs is still NSS. Energy ablation should be reserved for the elderly patients with co-morbidities and surveillance for the elderly and infirm patients.
INTRODUCTION: Recently, small renal masses (SRMs) (< or =4 cm) are found more frequently, especially in the elderly and co-morbid patients. Standard treatment for SRMs is nephron-sparing surgery (NSS). New techniques like energy ablation and surveillance have been introduced. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overview of treatment options for SRMs, based mainly on the meta-analyses available for NSS, cryoablation, radio-frequency ablation (RFA), and surveillance. RESULTS: NSS for SRMs is the standard therapy with excellent cancer-specific survival rates up to 97%. Cryoablation was mainly performed laparoscopically, and RFA mainly percutaneously. Pretreatment biopsies were used frequently for cryoablation (80%) and less frequently for RFA (50%). Primary failure rate for cryoablation was 4.8% and for RFA 13%. Major complication rates for both procedures are around 5%. Based on 6-month post-ablative biopsies, non-contrast enhancement seems to be an effective surrogate marker after cryoablation, but not after RFA. Follow-up after energy ablation is too short to draw final conclusion. Data on surveillance are based on small, retrospective data with insufficient follow-up. Growth patterns during follow-up do not correlate with the underlying tumour entity. CONCLUSION: Standard therapy for SRMs is still NSS. Energy ablation should be reserved for the elderly patients with co-morbidities and surveillance for the elderly and infirm patients.
Authors: Jihad H Kaouk; Wesley M White; Raj K Goel; Stacy Brethauer; Sebastien Crouzet; Raymond R Rackley; Courtenay Moore; Michael S Ingber; Georges-Pascal Haber Journal: Urology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.649
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
Authors: Christopher J Weight; Jihad H Kaouk; Nicholas J Hegarty; Erick M Remer; Charles M O'Malley; Brian R Lane; Inderbir S Gill; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gladwin C Hui; Kemal Tuncali; Servet Tatli; Paul R Morrison; Stuart G Silverman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2008-07-21 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Surena F Matin; Mihir M Desai; Jihad H Kaouk; Andrew Steinberg; Ed Mascha; Julie Thornton; Mahmoud H Sherief; Brenda Strzempkowski; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Heba W Z Khella; Nicole M A White; Hala Faragalla; Manal Gabril; Mina Boazak; David Dorian; Bishoy Khalil; Hany Antonios; Tian Tian Bao; Maria D Pasic; R John Honey; Robert Stewart; Kenneth T Pace; Georg A Bjarnason; Michael A S Jewett; George M Yousef Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2011-11-16
Authors: Hsiang-Chieh Lee; Chao Zhou; David W Cohen; Amy E Mondelblatt; Yihong Wang; Aaron D Aguirre; Dejun Shen; Yuri Sheikine; James G Fujimoto; James L Connolly Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Eugenio Brunocilla; Marco Borghesi; Carlo Monti; Riccardo Schiavina; Giuseppe Martorana Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 2.370