Literature DB >> 22546379

Understanding criteria for surveillance of patients with a small renal mass.

Bruce L Jacobs1, Hung-Jui Tan, Jeffrey S Montgomery, Alon Z Weizer, David P Wood, David C Miller, J Stuart Wolf, Khaled S Hafez.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To better delineate which factors influence the decision to undergo active surveillance of small renal masses.
METHODS: We identified 204 consecutive patients at our institution with clinical Stage T1 renal masses from June 2009 through June 2010. A variety of demographic and clinical characteristics were measured. Based on our previous work, the "ideal" criteria for active surveillance included tumor size ≤ 4 cm, Charlson comorbidity index of ≥ 2, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of ≥ 2, and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min. We performed sensitivity analyses to identify the characteristics associated with choice of active surveillance and compared these with our "ideal" criteria.
RESULTS: Of the 204 patients, 73 (36%) and 131 (64%) underwent active surveillance and treatment, respectively. The patients undergoing active surveillance versus treatment differed with respect to distance from hospital >60 miles (P = .04), ECOG PS of ≥ 2 (P < .01), tumor size (P < .01), multifocality (P = .03), endophytic nature of lesion (P = .04), and whether the patient's surgeon generally used a robotic, laparoscopic, or open approach (P = .01). Neither the baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .91) nor the Charlson comorbidity index (P = .69) were significant factors. The combination of tumor size <3 cm, ECOG PS of ≥ 2, and an endophytic lesion were most predictive of active surveillance.
CONCLUSION: Patient, tumor, and surgeon characteristics all influence the choice of active surveillance. From the sensitivity analyses, active surveillance was driven by a tumor size <3 cm, poor PS (ie, ECOG PS of ≥ 2), and an endophytic lesion.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22546379      PMCID: PMC3341598          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.12.052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  20 in total

1.  A plea for judicious treatment of small renal masses.

Authors:  J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass.

Authors:  Steven C Campbell; Andrew C Novick; Arie Belldegrun; Michael L Blute; George K Chow; Ithaar H Derweesh; Martha M Faraday; Jihad H Kaouk; Raymond J Leveillee; Surena F Matin; Paul Russo; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Active surveillance for renal cortical neoplasms.

Authors:  Juan Carlos Rosales; Georgios Haramis; Jorge Moreno; Ketan Badani; Mitchell C Benson; James McKiernan; Cristin Casazza; Jaime Landman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  A prospective randomized EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the complications of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Hendrik Van Poppel; Luigi Da Pozzo; Walter Albrecht; Vsevolod Matveev; Aldo Bono; Andrzej Borkowski; Jean-Marie Marechal; Laurence Klotz; Eila Skinner; Thomas Keane; Ilse Claessens; Richard Sylvester
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Cancer statistics, 2010.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Jiaquan Xu; Elizabeth Ward
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Natural history of renal cortical neoplasms during active surveillance with follow-up longer than 5 years.

Authors:  Georgios Haramis; Adam C Mues; Juan Carlos Rosales; Zhamshid Okhunov; Alberto Perez Lanzac; Ketan Badani; Mantu Gupta; Mitchell C Benson; James McKiernan; Jaime Landman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Treatment of patients with small renal masses: a survey of the American Urological Association.

Authors:  Rodney H Breau; Paul L Crispen; Sarah M Jenkins; Michael L Blute; Bradley C Leibovich
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Five-year survival after surgical treatment for kidney cancer: a population-based competing risk analysis.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Delayed intervention of sporadic renal masses undergoing active surveillance.

Authors:  Paul L Crispen; Rosalia Viterbo; Eric B Fox; Richard E Greenberg; David Y T Chen; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth.

Authors:  Alexander Kutikov; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Renal Cancer in the Elderly.

Authors:  Tania González León; Maricela Morera Pérez
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Clinical characteristics associated with treatment type for localized renal tumors: implications for practice pattern assessment.

Authors:  Marc C Smaldone; Gauthami Churukanti; Jay Simhan; Simon P Kim; Jose Reyes; Fang Zhu; Alexander Kutikov; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Patients with anatomically "simple" renal masses are more likely to be placed on active surveillance than those with anatomically "complex" lesions.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Robert G Uzzo; Neil Kocher; Tianyu Li; Brandon Manley; Reza Mehrazin; Timothy Ito; Philip Abbosh; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Daniel Canter; Marc C Smaldone; Alexander Kutikov
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2014-06-07       Impact factor: 3.498

5.  Patient function, long-term survival, and use of surgery in patients with kidney cancer.

Authors:  Hung-Jui Tan; Karim Chamie; Timothy J Daskivich; Mark S Litwin; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  The impact of a multidisciplinary small renal mass clinic on patient treatment decisions.

Authors:  Danielle Earis; Chris Wall; Nicolette Sinclair; Trustin Domes; Kunal Jana
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 7.  Patient and provider experiences with active surveillance: A scoping review.

Authors:  Claire Kim; Frances C Wright; Nicole J Look Hong; Gary Groot; Lucy Helyer; Pamela Meiers; May Lynn Quan; Robin Urquhart; Rebecca Warburton; Anna R Gagliardi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Surveillance for low-risk kidney cancer: a narrative review of contemporary worldwide practices.

Authors:  Helen Wei Cui; Mark Edward Sullivan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

9.  Small renal masses: surgery or surveillance.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.