Mahyar Kashan1, Mazyar Ghanaat1, Andreas M Hötker2, Cihan Duzgol2, Alejandro Sanchez1, Renzo G DiNatale1, Kyle A Blum1, Maria F Becerra3, Brandon J Manley1, Jozefina Casuscelli4, Michael Chiok1, Jonathan A Coleman1, Paul Russo1, Satish K Tickoo5, Oguz Akin2, A Ari Hakimi6. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 4. Department of Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: hakimia@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the outcomes of surgical intervention and active surveillance in patients diagnosed with cystic renal cell carcinoma at our hypothesized radiological cutoff of greater than 50% cystic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all 430 patients with a pathologically confirmed cystic renal mass that fit our criteria from 2000 to 2015. The 292 patients with a lack of computerized tomography, tumors less than 50% cystic on imaging, multifocal tumors and prior renal cell carcinoma were excluded from study. Patients were stratified into benign or malignant subgroups, and radiological, clinicopathological and oncologic features were determined. Univariate and multivariate associations between clinicoradiological parameters in each group were analyzed. We similarly reviewed the records of a separate cohort of patients treated with active surveillance for cystic renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Of the 138 identified cases of cystic renal cell carcinoma 102 (73.9%) were renal cell carcinoma and 36 (26.1%) were benign masses. Of the tumors 77.5% were Fuhrman grade 1-2, 83.4% were stage pT2 or less and 65.9% showed clear cell histology. On univariate analysis male gender, a solid component and increasing Bosniak classification were significant for malignancy. In a separate cohort we identified 38 patients on active surveillance. The growth rate was 1.0 mm per year overall and 2.3 mm per year for the solid component. At a median followup of more than 4 years in all cohorts there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis of cystic renal cell carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unifocal cystic renal cell carcinoma evaluated using a standardized radiological threshold of greater than 50% cystic had an excellent prognosis on active surveillance and after surgical resection.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the outcomes of surgical intervention and active surveillance in patients diagnosed with cystic renal cell carcinoma at our hypothesized radiological cutoff of greater than 50% cystic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all 430 patients with a pathologically confirmed cystic renal mass that fit our criteria from 2000 to 2015. The 292 patients with a lack of computerized tomography, tumors less than 50% cystic on imaging, multifocal tumors and prior renal cell carcinoma were excluded from study. Patients were stratified into benign or malignant subgroups, and radiological, clinicopathological and oncologic features were determined. Univariate and multivariate associations between clinicoradiological parameters in each group were analyzed. We similarly reviewed the records of a separate cohort of patients treated with active surveillance for cystic renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Of the 138 identified cases of cystic renal cell carcinoma 102 (73.9%) were renal cell carcinoma and 36 (26.1%) were benign masses. Of the tumors 77.5% were Fuhrman grade 1-2, 83.4% were stage pT2 or less and 65.9% showed clear cell histology. On univariate analysis male gender, a solid component and increasing Bosniak classification were significant for malignancy. In a separate cohort we identified 38 patients on active surveillance. The growth rate was 1.0 mm per year overall and 2.3 mm per year for the solid component. At a median followup of more than 4 years in all cohorts there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis of cystic renal cell carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with unifocal cystic renal cell carcinoma evaluated using a standardized radiological threshold of greater than 50% cystic had an excellent prognosis on active surveillance and after surgical resection.
Authors: Adam C Reese; Pamela T Johnson; Michael A Gorin; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf; Elliot K Fishman; George J Netto; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Patrick O Richard; Philippe D Violette; Michael A S Jewett; Frederic Pouliot; Michael Leveridge; Alan So; Thomas F Whelan; Ricardo Rendon; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Michael J Leveridge; Antonio Finelli; John R Kachura; Andrew Evans; Hannah Chung; Daniel A Shiff; Kimberly Fernandes; Michael A S Jewett Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sam N Chawla; Paul L Crispen; Alexandra L Hanlon; Richard E Greenberg; David Y T Chen; Robert G Uzzo Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Eric Jonasch; Neeraj Agarwal; Clair Beard; Sam Bhayani; Graeme B Bolger; Sam S Chang; Toni K Choueiri; Ithaar H Derweesh; Shilpa Gupta; Steven L Hancock; Jenny J Kim; Timothy M Kuzel; Elaine T Lam; Clayton Lau; Ellis G Levine; Daniel W Lin; Kim A Margolin; M Dror Michaelson; Thomas Olencki; Roberto Pili; Elizabeth R Plimack; Edward N Rampersaud; Bruce G Redman; Charles J Ryan; Joel Sheinfeld; Kanishka Sircar; Brad Somer; Jue Wang; Richard B Wilder; Mary A Dwyer; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jaimin R Bhatt; Michael A S Jewett; Patrick O Richard; Sarah Kawaguchi; Narhari Timilshina; Andrew Evans; Shabbir Alibhai; Antonio Finelli Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sherri M Donat; Mireya Diaz; Jay Todd Bishoff; Jonathan A Coleman; Philipp Dahm; Ithaar H Derweesh; S Duke Herrell; Susan Hilton; Eric Jonasch; Daniel W Lin; Victor E Reuter; Sam S Chang Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jean V Joseph; Ralph Brasacchio; Chunkit Fung; Jay Reeder; Kevin Bylund; Deepak Sahasrabudhe; Shu Yuan Yeh; Ahmed Ghazi; Patrick Fultz; Deborah Rubens; Guan Wu; Eric Singer; Edward Schwarz; Supriya Mohile; James Mohler; Dan Theodorescu; Yi Fen Lee; Paul Okunieff; David McConkey; Hani Rashid; Chawnshang Chang; Yves Fradet; Khurshid Guru; Janet Kukreja; Gerald Sufrin; Yair Lotan; Howard Bailey; Katia Noyes; Seymour Schwartz; Kathy Rideout; Gennady Bratslavsky; Steven C Campbell; Ithaar Derweesh; Per-Anders Abrahamsson; Mark Soloway; Leonard Gomella; Dragan Golijanin; Robert Svatek; Thomas Frye; Seth Lerner; Ganesh Palapattu; George Wilding; Michael Droller; Donald Trump Journal: Bladder Cancer Date: 2018-10-03
Authors: Stuart G Silverman; Ivan Pedrosa; James H Ellis; Nicole M Hindman; Nicola Schieda; Andrew D Smith; Erick M Remer; Atul B Shinagare; Nicole E Curci; Steven S Raman; Shane A Wells; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Zhen J Wang; Hersh Chandarana; Matthew S Davenport Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Satheesh Krishna; Nicola Schieda; Ivan Pedrosa; Nicole Hindman; Ronaldo H Baroni; Stuart G Silverman; Matthew S Davenport Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 4.813