Literature DB >> 24913564

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

Jeffrey J Tomaszewski1, Robert G Uzzo2, Neil Kocher2, Tianyu Li2, Brandon Manley2, Reza Mehrazin2, Timothy Ito2, Philip Abbosh2, Rosalia Viterbo2, David Y T Chen2, Richard E Greenberg2, Daniel Canter2, Marc C Smaldone2, Alexander Kutikov2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if radiographically less complex renal lesions are deemed clinically less "worrisome" and therefore are more likely to be considered for active surveillance (AS).
METHODS: We examined our prospective institutional database to identify and compare patients with localized renal cell carcinoma undergoing an initial period of AS or immediate surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine covariates associated with receipt of AS.
RESULTS: Of 1,059 patients with available anatomic complexity data, 195 underwent an initial period of AS (median duration of AS 25.6 mo [interquartile range: 11.8-52.8 mo]). Compared with patients undergoing immediate surgical treatment, patients selected for AS had lower overall nephrometry scores (NS) with tumors that were smaller, further from the sinus or urothelium, more often polar, and less often hilar (P<0.0015 all comparisons). After adjustment for age, largest tumor size, individual components of NS, total NS, and Charlson comorbidity index, total NS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9 [CI: 1.4-2.5]), "R" score of 1 (OR = 5.2 [CI: 1.8-15.2]), "N" score of 1 (OR = 2.3 [CI: 1.5-3.6]), "L" score of 1 (OR = 1.4 [CI: 0.84-2.2]), and nonhilar tumor location (OR = 2.7 [CI: 1.2-5.8]) increased the probability of being selected for AS compared with immediate surgery. Findings remained significant in a subanalysis of T1a renal masses.
CONCLUSIONS: Lower tumor anatomic complexity was strongly associated with the decision to proceed with AS in patients with stage I renal mass. Not only may these data afford new insights into renal mass treatment trends, but the findings may also prove useful in the development of objective protocols to most appropriately select patients for AS.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Nephrometry score; Radiographic imaging; Renal cell carcinoma

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24913564      PMCID: PMC4258180          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.05.003

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


  26 in total

1.  Radiogenomics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: associations between CT imaging features and mutations.

Authors:  Christoph A Karlo; Pier Luigi Di Paolo; Joshua Chaim; A Ari Hakimi; Irina Ostrovnaya; Paul Russo; Hedvig Hricak; Robert Motzer; James J Hsieh; Oguz Akin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

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.  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

4.  Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal masses: effect of tumor location.

Authors:  Ramakrishna Venkatesh; Kyle Weld; Caroline D Ames; Sherbourne R Figenshau; Chandru P Sundaram; Gerald L Andriole; Ralph V Clayman; Jaime Landman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  The evolving presentation of renal carcinoma in the United States: trends from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

Authors:  Mike M Nguyen; Inderbir S Gill; Lars M Ellison
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for solitary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging.

Authors:  Alexander Kutikov; Lindsay K Fossett; Parvati Ramchandani; John E Tomaszewski; Evan S Siegelman; Marc P Banner; Keith N Van Arsdalen; Alan J Wein; S Bruce Malkowicz
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 7.  Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma--a meta-analysis and review.

Authors:  David A Kunkle; Brian L Egleston; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  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

9.  Tailoring technique of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy to tumor characteristics.

Authors:  Alon Z Weizer; Scott M Gilbert; William W Roberts; Brent K Hollenbeck; J Stuart Wolf
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Decreasing size at diagnosis of stage 1 renal cell carcinoma: analysis from the National Cancer Data Base, 1993 to 2004.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Katherine Mallin; Jamie Ritchey; Jacqueline D Villalta; Peter R Carroll; Christopher J Kane
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  1 in total

1.  Is anatomic complexity associated with renal tumor growth kinetics under active surveillance?

Authors:  Reza Mehrazin; Marc C Smaldone; Brian Egleston; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Charles W Concodora; Timothy K Ito; Philip H Abbosh; David Y T Chen; Alexander Kutikov; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 3.498

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.