Literature DB >> 21569190

What is the best treatment strategy for incidentally detected small renal masses? A decision analysis.

Robert Abouassaly1, Simon Yang, Antonio Finelli, Girish S Kulkarni, Shabbir M H Alibhai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: •To determine the optimal treatment for incidentally detected small renal masses between radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, ablative therapy (AT) and active surveillance (AS) using a decision-analytic Markov model. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: •The reference case was an otherwise healthy 60-year-old patient. •Health utilities and probabilities for postoperative complications, progression to chronic renal insufficiency (CRI), local and systemic recurrence, disease-specific and all-cause mortality were derived from published literature. •Outcome measures included life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy. •Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed, including probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: •The mean life expectancy was 18.49 years for partial nephrectomy, 18.09 years for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, 17.85 years for AT and 17.70 years for AS. •External validation of our model yielded similar cancer-specific survival rates to the published literature. •AS became preferred if age at presentation was >74 years, the probability of systemic recurrence on AS was <1.3%/year or when the hazard ratio of death with CRI was >1.63. •AT became preferred when the probability of systemic recurrence on AT was <1.2%/year, whereas laparoscopic radical nephrectomy was preferred when the risk of CRI with this treatment was <6.6%/year.
CONCLUSIONS: •Based on current literature, our model emphasizes the importance of balance between disease control and preserving renal function on life expectancy, and justifies initial active intervention with partial nephrectomy in younger patients. •Our results are consistent with recent American Urological Association guidelines for the management of this disease. •However, data used in the model were mostly derived from retrospective data, and thus are subject to selection bias, particularly with respect to AS and AT.
© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21569190     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10115.x

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


  8 in total

1.  [Small renal cell carcinoma-active surveillance and ablation].

Authors:  J J Wendler; R Damm; U-B Liehr; T Brunner; M Pech; M Schostak
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Treating small renal masses: Costing it out.

Authors:  Stanley A Yap; Antonio Finelli; Shabbir M H Alibhai
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  [Renal cell carcinoma in older and geriatric patients].

Authors:  N Wagener
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  Impact of the length of time between diagnosis and surgical removal of urologic neoplasms on survival.

Authors:  Vincent Bourgade; Sarah J Drouin; David R Yates; Jerôme Parra; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Olivier Cussenot; Morgan Rouprêt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  [Active surveillance: concept for renal cell carcinoma?].

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

Review 6.  Active surveillance of small renal masses.

Authors:  Marc C Smaldone; Anthony T Corcoran; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  Small renal masses: surgery or surveillance.

Authors:  Eu Chang Hwang; Ho Song Yu; Dong Deuk Kwon
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-05-14

8.  Life expectancy calculation in urology: Are we equitably treating older patients?

Authors:  Nikita R Bhatt; Niall F Davis; Kieran Breen; Hugh D Flood; Subhasis K Giri
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2017-10-10
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.