Literature DB >> 27508947

Distinguishing malignant and benign renal masses with composite models and nomograms: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinically localized renal masses suspicious for malignancy.

Phillip M Pierorazio1, Hiten D Patel2, Michael H Johnson1, Stephen M Sozio3,4, Ritu Sharma5, Emmanuel Iyoha5, Eric B Bass5, Mohamad E Allaf1.   

Abstract

Solid renal masses and cystic lesions with solid components are suspicious for renal cell carcinoma. Without an effective screening test, composite models and nomograms rely on patient and tumor characteristics to stratify the risk of benign disease versus malignant disease. To guide decisions about the use of renal mass sampling or excision, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the ability of composite models to predict the likelihood of malignancy on the basis of preoperative clinical variables was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 1997, through May 1, 2015, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Composite models necessarily included imaging results and at least 1 element from the following to be compared with surgical pathology: demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and blood or urine tests. Two independent reviewers screened citations and extracted data. Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used to assess the risk of bias. The strength of evidence was graded with the scheme recommended by Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Twenty studies (12,149 patients) were included in this review. The only significant predictors of malignancy in the composite models were tumor size (effect size, 1.33-fold increased risk per centimeter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-1.43) and male sex (effect size, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.39-3.02). The results were inconclusive or not significant for tumor characteristics, age, body mass index, and incidental presentation. In conclusion, composite models currently have a limited ability to distinguish malignant renal masses from benign renal masses, with increased tumor size and male sex associated with malignancy. Cancer 2016;122:3267-3276.
© 2016 American Cancer Society. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  composite models; malignancy; nomogram; predictors; renal cell carcinoma; renal mass

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27508947     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  17 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

2.  The value of superb microvascular imaging in differentiating benign renal mass from malignant renal tumor: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Yiran Mao; Jie Mu; Jing Zhao; Lihui Zhao; Xiaojie Xin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  The Role of Interventional Radiology Techniques in the Management of Renal Angiomyolipomas.

Authors:  Ryan M Kiefer; S William Stavropoulos
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Update on Renal Mass Biopsy.

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

Review 5.  Trends in Percutaneous Thermal Ablation Therapies in the Treatment of T1a Renal Cell Carcinomas Rather than Partial Nephrectomy/Radical Nephrectomy.

Authors:  Sepideh Shakeri; Steven S Raman
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 1.513

6.  External validation of a nomogram including the computed tomography imaging score to predict indolent renal masses.

Authors:  X Chen; B Wan; D Yang; H Zhao; W Tan
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 7.  Current Management of Small Renal Masses, Including Patient Selection, Renal Tumor Biopsy, Active Surveillance, and Thermal Ablation.

Authors:  Alejandro Sanchez; Adam S Feldman; A Ari Hakimi
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Can multiphase CT scan distinguish between papillary renal cell carcinoma type 1 and type 2?

Authors:  Ahmet Bindayi; Michelle L Mcdonald; Alp T Beksac; Gerant Rivera-Sanfeliz; Ahmed Shabaik; Fiona Hughes; Lejla Aganovic; Donna E Hansel; Ithaar H Derweesh
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-07

9.  The future of perioperative therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma: how can we PROSPER?

Authors:  Hiten D Patel; Maneka Puligandla; Brian M Shuch; Bradley C Leibovich; Anil Kapoor; Viraj A Master; Charles G Drake; Daniel Yc Heng; Primo N Lara; Toni K Choueiri; Deborah Maskens; Eric A Singer; Scott E Eggener; Robert S Svatek; Walter M Stadler; Suzanne Cole; Sabina Signoretti; Rajan T Gupta; Marc Dror Michaelson; David F McDermott; David Cella; Lynne I Wagner; Naomi B Haas; Michael A Carducci; Lauren C Harshman; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 3.404

10.  Comparative Outcomes and Predictive Assessment of Trifecta in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Cases with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A 10-Year Experience at Ramathibodi Hospital.

Authors:  Chaichant Soisrithong; Pokket Sirisreetreerux; Premsant Sangkum; Kittinut Kijvikai; Wit Viseshsindh; Wisoot Kongchareonsombat; Charoen Leenanupunth; Wachira Kochakarn; Pocharapong Jenjitranant
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2021-06-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.