Literature DB >> 27450936

Predictors of Delayed Intervention for Patients on Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses: Does Renal Mass Biopsy Influence Our Decision?

Sapan N Ambani1, Todd M Morgan2, Jeffrey S Montgomery2, Adam J Gadzinski3, Bruce L Jacobs4, Scott Hawken5, Naveen Krishnan5, Elaine M Caoili6, James H Ellis6, Lakshmi P Kunju7, Khaled S Hafez2, David C Miller2, Ganesh S Palapattu2, Alon Z Weizer2, J Stuart Wolf2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review our clinical T1a renal mass active surveillance (AS) cohort to determine whether renal mass biopsy was associated with maintenance of AS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From our prospectively maintained database we identified patients starting AS from June 2009 to December 2011 who had at least 5 months of radiologic follow-up, unless limited by unexpected death or delayed intervention. The primary outcome was delayed intervention. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic variables were compared. We constructed Kaplan-Meier survival curves for maintenance of AS. Cox multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of delayed intervention.
RESULTS: We identified 118 patients who met criteria for inclusion with a median radiologic follow-up of 29.5 months. The delayed intervention group had greater initial mass size and faster growth rate compared to those who continued AS. Rate of renal mass biopsy was similar between the 2 groups. In the multivariable analysis, size >2 cm (hazard ratio [HR] 3.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-10.38, P = .015), growth rate (continuous by mm/year: HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.12-1.41, P < .001), but not renal biopsy (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.70-3.30, P = .29), were associated with increased risk of delayed intervention. Time-to-event curves also showed that size was closely associated with delayed intervention whereas renal mass biopsy was not.
CONCLUSION: At our institution, growth rate and initial tumor size appear to be more influential than renal mass biopsy results in determining delayed intervention after a period of AS. Further analysis is required to determine the role of renal biopsy in the management of patients being considered for AS.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27450936     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.04.067

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Kidney cancer: Undertreatment of small renal masses by overuse of biopsy.

Authors:  Hiten D Patel; Phillip M Pierorazio
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Update on Renal Mass Biopsy.

Authors:  Miki Haifler; Alexander Kutikov
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Prolyl hydroxylase-3 is a novel renal cell carcinoma biomarker.

Authors:  Kwang Hyun Kim; Hyung Ho Lee; Young Eun Yoon; Joon Chae Na; Kyung Sup Kim; Woong Kyu Han
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2019-10-01

Review 4.  Quality of Life and Psychological Distress among Patients with Small Renal Masses.

Authors:  Liliana Vartolomei; Andrei Cotruș; Camelia Stanciu; Cristian Delcea; Marco Tozzi; Elena Lievore; Felice Crocetto; Francesco Del Giudice; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Matteo Muto; Matteo Ferro
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  A 25 year perspective on the evolution and advances in an understanding of the biology, evaluation and treatment of kidney cancer.

Authors:  Daniel M Geynisman; Jodi K Maranchie; Mark W Ball; Gennady Bratslavsky; Eric A Singer
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.954

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.