Literature DB >> 29625756

Active Surveillance for Localized Renal Masses: Tumor Growth, Delayed Intervention Rates, and >5-yr Clinical Outcomes.

Andrew G McIntosh1, Benjamin T Ristau2, Karen Ruth3, Rachel Jennings4, Eric Ross3, Marc C Smaldone3, David Y T Chen3, Rosalia Viterbo3, Richard E Greenberg3, Alexander Kutikov3, Robert G Uzzo3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) has gained acceptance as a management strategy for localized renal masses.
OBJECTIVE: To review our large single-center experience with AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 2000 to 2016, we identified 457 patients with 544 lesions managed with AS from our prospectively maintained kidney cancer database. A subset analysis was performed for patients with ≥5-yr follow-up without delayed intervention (DI). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Linear growth rates (LGRs) were estimated using linear regression for the initial LGR (iLGR) AS interval and the entire AS period. Overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of DI were estimated with Kaplan-Meier methods utilizing iLGR groups, adjusting for covariates. DI was evaluated for association with OS in Cox models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 67 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 41-94 mo) for surviving patients. Cumulative incidence of DI (n=153) after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 yr was 9%, 22%, 29%, 35%, and 42%, respectively. Median initial maximum tumor dimension was 2.1cm (IQR 1.5-3.1cm). Median iLGR and overall LGR were 1.9 (IQR 0-7) and 1.9 (IQR 0.3-4.2) mm/yr, respectively. Compared with the no growth group, low iLGR (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25, 95% cumulative incidence [CI] 0.82-1.91), moderate iLGR (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.31-3.36), and high iLGR (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.23-2.84) were associated with DI (p=0.003). The iLGR was not associated with OS (p=0.8). DI was not associated with OS (HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.79-2.29, p=0.3). Five-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) was 1.2% (95% CI 0.4-2.8%). Of 99 patients on AS without DI for >5 yr, one patient metastasized.
CONCLUSIONS: At >5 yr, AS±DI is a successful strategy in carefully managed patients. DI often occurs in the first 2-3 yr, becoming less likely over time. Rare metastasis and low CSM rates should reassure physicians that AS is safe in the intermediate to long term. PATIENT
SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at the outcomes of patients with kidney masses who elected to enroll in active surveillance rather than immediate surgery. We found that patients who need surgery are often identified early and those who remain on active surveillance become less likely to need surgery over time. We concluded that active surveillance with or without delayed surgery is a safe practice and that, when properly managed and followed, patients are unlikely to metastasize or die from kidney cancer.
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Delayed intervention; Oncology; Renal cell carcinoma; Renal mass; Tumor growth kinetics

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29625756     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  29 in total

Review 1.  Imaging Protocols for Active Surveillance in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Christine W Liaw; Jared S Winoker; Reza Mehrazin
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Local ablation vs partial nephrectomy in T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

Authors:  Lei Shi; Yan He; Chang Liu; Xiaoyuan Qian; Zhixian Wang
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-09-05       Impact factor: 4.452

3.  Safety and delayed intervention rates of active surveillance for small renal masses in an elderly population.

Authors:  Brian T Kadow; Marc C Smaldone
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

Review 4.  Harnessing the Genomic Landscape of the Small Renal Mass to Guide Clinical Management.

Authors:  Andrew W Silagy; Alejandro Sanchez; Brandon J Manley; Karim Bensalah; Axel Bex; Jose A Karam; Börje Ljungberg; Brian Shuch; A Ari Hakimi
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2019-04-28

5.  Role of Virtual Biopsy in the Management of Renal Masses.

Authors:  Alberto Diaz de Leon; Matthew S Davenport; Stuart G Silverman; Nicola Schieda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  [Limits of surgery in uro-oncology].

Authors:  A Heidenreich
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 0.639

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.  Growth Rates of Genetically Defined Renal Tumors: Implications for Active Surveillance and Intervention.

Authors:  Mark W Ball; Julie Y An; Patrick T Gomella; Rabindra Gautam; Christopher J Ricketts; Cathy D Vocke; Laura S Schmidt; Maria J Merino; Ramaprasad Srinivasan; Ashkan A Malayeri; Adam R Metwalli; W Marston Linehan
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Available active surveillance follow-up protocols for small renal mass: a systematic review.

Authors:  Giacomo Rebez; Nicola Pavan; M Carmen Mir
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-16       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Decision-making in active surveillance in kidney cancer: current trends and future urine and tissue markers.

Authors:  Sunil H Patel; Nirmish Singla; Phillip M Pierorazio
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.