Saeed Dabestani1, Lorenzo Marconi2, Teele Kuusk3, Axel Bex4. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 2. Department of Urology, Coimbra University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.bex@nki.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving curative surgery, either radical or partial nephrectomy, have been shown in contemporary studies to develop recurrence within 5 years in 20-30% of case. Therefore, post-operative follow-up (FU) imaging plays a crucial role in detecting recurrent or metastatic disease. A number of prognostic scores have been developed to predict risk of recurrence. This review summarises the current knowledge on established FU protocols and their limitations. METHODS: A non-systematic literature search was conducted using Medline. Furthermore, major guidelines [European Association of Urology (EAU), American Urological Association (AUA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)] were reviewed and assessed. RESULTS: The EAU, AUA and NCCN post-operative follow-up guidelines differ in the frequency and type of imaging modalities recommended. The optimal duration of follow-up remains to be elucidated as does the impact of follow-up protocols on patient outcomes and quality of life. Established follow-up protocols do not take non-RCC-related factors, such as patient age and performance status into account. However, in the future individualised duration of FU based on competing risks of cancer recurrence and non-RCC death may be optimised, maximising resources and patient quality of life. CONCLUSION: There is a clear need to establish evidence-based follow-up protocols and to assess the impact of follow-up protocols on individual patients and society.
PURPOSE:Patients with localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving curative surgery, either radical or partial nephrectomy, have been shown in contemporary studies to develop recurrence within 5 years in 20-30% of case. Therefore, post-operative follow-up (FU) imaging plays a crucial role in detecting recurrent or metastatic disease. A number of prognostic scores have been developed to predict risk of recurrence. This review summarises the current knowledge on established FU protocols and their limitations. METHODS: A non-systematic literature search was conducted using Medline. Furthermore, major guidelines [European Association of Urology (EAU), American Urological Association (AUA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)] were reviewed and assessed. RESULTS: The EAU, AUA and NCCN post-operative follow-up guidelines differ in the frequency and type of imaging modalities recommended. The optimal duration of follow-up remains to be elucidated as does the impact of follow-up protocols on patient outcomes and quality of life. Established follow-up protocols do not take non-RCC-related factors, such as patient age and performance status into account. However, in the future individualised duration of FU based on competing risks of cancer recurrence and non-RCC death may be optimised, maximising resources and patient quality of life. CONCLUSION: There is a clear need to establish evidence-based follow-up protocols and to assess the impact of follow-up protocols on individual patients and society.
Authors: Maxine Sun; Shahrokh F Shariat; Christopher Cheng; Vincenzo Ficarra; Masaru Murai; Stéphane Oudard; Allan J Pantuck; Richard Zigeuner; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Saeed Dabestani; Lorenzo Marconi; Fabian Hofmann; Fiona Stewart; Thomas B L Lam; Steven E Canfield; Michael Staehler; Thomas Powles; Börje Ljungberg; Axel Bex Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-26 Impact factor: 41.316
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: Chaitanya R Divgi; Robert G Uzzo; Constantine Gatsonis; Roman Bartz; Silke Treutner; Jian Qin Yu; David Chen; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Steven Larson; Paul Bevan; Paul Russo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Igor Frank; Michael L Blute; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Amy L Weaver; Bradley C Leibovich; Horst Zincke Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paolo Capogrosso; Umberto Capitanio; Giovanni La Croce; Alessandro Nini; Andrea Salonia; Francesco Montorsi; Roberto Bertini Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2015-06-01
Authors: Manuela Costantini; Maria Luana Poeta; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Dana Hashim; Catherine L Callahan; Steno Sentinelli; Laura Mendoza; Marco Vicari; Vincenzo Pompeo; Angela Cecilia Pesatori; Curt T DellaValle; Giuseppe Simone; Vito Michele Fazio; Michele Gallucci; Maria Teresa Landi Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 3.121
Authors: Michael Staehler; Peter J Goebell; Lothar Müller; Till-Oliver Emde; Natalie Wetzel; Lisa Kruggel; Martina Jänicke; Norbert Marschner Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Florian Hagen; Felix Peisen; Jakob Spogis; Antonia Mair; Konstantin Nikolaou; Arnulf Stenzl; Stephan Kruck; Jens Bedke; Sascha Kaufmann; Wolfgang M Thaiss Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 3.909