Hakmin Lee1, Jung Keun Lee1, Kwangmo Kim1, Cheol Kwak2, Hyeon Hoe Kim2, Seok-Soo Byun1, Sang Eun Lee1, Sung Kyu Hong3. 1. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300, Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyunggi-do, 463-707, Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300, Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyunggi-do, 463-707, Korea. skhong@snubh.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While active surveillance for small renal mass is gaining acceptance, controversy still continues on true metastatic potential of small renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Thus, we investigated the risks of synchronous/metachronous metastases and their potential predictors among T1a RCC patients who underwent surgical treatment. METHODS: We reviewed data from 2114 patients who received radical or partial nephrectomy for small renal tumor (≤ 4 cm) from 1990 to 2013. For our study, patients were stratified into four different groups according to tumor size (group 1: 0-1.0 cm, group 2: 1.1-2.0 cm, group 3: 2.1-3.0 cm, group 4: 3.1-4.0 cm). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze metastatic potentials according to tumor size and identify useful predictors of metastases. RESULTS: Among 1913 T1a RCC patients, there were low but nonnegligible rates of metastases (group 2: 1.1 %, group 3: 3.3 %, group 4: 6.0 %, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant differences in metastasis-free survivals between groups (p < 0.001). A linear positive association was observed between tumor size and metastatic rate (p < 0.001). Diabetic T1a RCC patients showed significantly inferior metastasis-free survival than nondiabetic counterparts (p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor size and history of diabetes mellitus were independently associated with metastasis in T1a RCC. CONCLUSIONS: As T1a RCCs present low but nonnegligible risk of metastasis, patients with small renal mass should be counseled on such risk when offered active surveillance. Larger tumor size and history of diabetes mellitus may be associated with higher risk of metastasis in T1a RCC.
INTRODUCTION: While active surveillance for small renal mass is gaining acceptance, controversy still continues on true metastatic potential of small renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Thus, we investigated the risks of synchronous/metachronous metastases and their potential predictors among T1aRCCpatients who underwent surgical treatment. METHODS: We reviewed data from 2114 patients who received radical or partial nephrectomy for small renal tumor (≤ 4 cm) from 1990 to 2013. For our study, patients were stratified into four different groups according to tumor size (group 1: 0-1.0 cm, group 2: 1.1-2.0 cm, group 3: 2.1-3.0 cm, group 4: 3.1-4.0 cm). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze metastatic potentials according to tumor size and identify useful predictors of metastases. RESULTS: Among 1913 T1aRCCpatients, there were low but nonnegligible rates of metastases (group 2: 1.1 %, group 3: 3.3 %, group 4: 6.0 %, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant differences in metastasis-free survivals between groups (p < 0.001). A linear positive association was observed between tumor size and metastatic rate (p < 0.001). Diabetic T1a RCCpatients showed significantly inferior metastasis-free survival than nondiabetic counterparts (p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor size and history of diabetes mellitus were independently associated with metastasis in T1aRCC. CONCLUSIONS: As T1a RCCs present low but nonnegligible risk of metastasis, patients with small renal mass should be counseled on such risk when offered active surveillance. Larger tumor size and history of diabetes mellitus may be associated with higher risk of metastasis in T1aRCC.
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: G Kovacs; M Akhtar; B J Beckwith; P Bugert; C S Cooper; B Delahunt; J N Eble; S Fleming; B Ljungberg; L J Medeiros; H Moch; V E Reuter; E Ritz; G Roos; D Schmidt; J R Srigley; S Störkel; E van den Berg; B Zbar Journal: J Pathol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Giovanni Lughezzani; Claudio Jeldres; Hendrik Isbarn; Paul Perrotte; Shahrokh F Shariat; Maxine Sun; Hugues Widmer; Philippe Arjane; Francois Peloquin; Daniel Pharand; Jean-Jacques Patard; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stefan Zastrow; Anh Phuong; Immanuel von Bar; Vladimir Novotny; Oliver W Hakenberg; Manfred P Wirth Journal: Urol Int Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Blanca Paño; Alexandre Soler; Debra A Goldman; Rafael Salvador; Laura Buñesch; Carmen Sebastià; Carlos Nicolau Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 3.039