Reza Mehrazin1, Marc C Smaldone2, Brian Egleston3, Jeffrey J Tomaszewski4, Charles W Concodora2, Timothy K Ito2, Philip H Abbosh2, David Y T Chen2, Alexander Kutikov2, Robert G Uzzo5. 1. Department of Urology & Oncological Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Biostatistics & Bioinformatics Facility, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Department of Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Rowan, University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: Robert.Uzzo@fccc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Linear growth rate (LGR) is the most commonly employed trigger for definitive intervention in patients with renal masses managed with an initial period of active surveillance (AS). Using our institutional cohort, we explored the association between tumor anatomic complexity at presentation and LGR in patients managed with AS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Enhancing renal masses managed expectantly for at least 6 months were included for analysis. The association between Nephrometry Score and LGR was assessed using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for the age, Charlson score, race, sex, and initial tumor size. RESULTS: Overall, 346 patients (401 masses) met the inclusion criteria (18% ≥ cT1b), with a median follow-up of 37 months (range: 6-169). Of these, 44% patients showed progression to definitive intervention with a median duration of 27 months (range: 6-130). On comparing patients managed expectantly to those requiring intervention, no difference was seen in median tumor size at presentation (2.2 vs. 2.2 cm), whereas significant differences in median age (74 vs. 65 y, P < 0.001), Charlson comorbidity score (3 vs. 2, P<0.001), and average LGR (0.23 vs. 0.49 cm/y, P < 0.001) were observed between groups. Following adjustment, for each 1-point increase in Nephrometry Score sum, the average tumor LGR increased by 0.037 cm/y (P = 0.002). Of the entire cohort, 6 patients (1.7%) showed progression to metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: The demonstrated association between anatomic tumor complexity at presentation and renal masses of LGR of clinical stage 1 under AS may afford a clinically useful cue to tailor individual patient radiographic surveillance schedules and warrants further evaluation.
INTRODUCTION: Linear growth rate (LGR) is the most commonly employed trigger for definitive intervention in patients with renal masses managed with an initial period of active surveillance (AS). Using our institutional cohort, we explored the association between tumor anatomic complexity at presentation and LGR in patients managed with AS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Enhancing renal masses managed expectantly for at least 6 months were included for analysis. The association between Nephrometry Score and LGR was assessed using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for the age, Charlson score, race, sex, and initial tumor size. RESULTS: Overall, 346 patients (401 masses) met the inclusion criteria (18% ≥ cT1b), with a median follow-up of 37 months (range: 6-169). Of these, 44% patients showed progression to definitive intervention with a median duration of 27 months (range: 6-130). On comparing patients managed expectantly to those requiring intervention, no difference was seen in median tumor size at presentation (2.2 vs. 2.2 cm), whereas significant differences in median age (74 vs. 65 y, P < 0.001), Charlson comorbidity score (3 vs. 2, P<0.001), and average LGR (0.23 vs. 0.49 cm/y, P < 0.001) were observed between groups. Following adjustment, for each 1-point increase in Nephrometry Score sum, the average tumor LGR increased by 0.037 cm/y (P = 0.002). Of the entire cohort, 6 patients (1.7%) showed progression to metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: The demonstrated association between anatomic tumor complexity at presentation and renal masses of LGR of clinical stage 1 under AS may afford a clinically useful cue to tailor individual patient radiographic surveillance schedules and warrants further evaluation.
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
Authors: Paul L Crispen; Rosalia Viterbo; Stephen A Boorjian; Richard E Greenberg; David Y T Chen; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jason Rothman; Paul L Crispen; Yu-Ning Wong; Tahseen Al-Saleem; Eric Fox; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Urology Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jason Rothman; Brian Egleston; Yu-Ning Wong; Kevan Iffrig; Steve Lebovitch; Robert G Uzzo Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 7.450