INTRODUCTION: The natural history of small renal masses has been well defined, leading to the recommendation of active surveillance in some patients with limited life expectancy. However, this information is less clear for large renal masses (LRM), leading to ambiguity for management in the older, comorbid patient. The objective of this study was to define the natural history, including the growth rate and metastatic risk, of LRM in order to better counsel patients regarding active surveillance. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with solid renal masses >4 cm that had repeated imaging identified from an institutional imaging database. Patient comorbidities and outcomes were obtained through retrospective chart analysis. Outcomes assessed included tumour growth and metastatic rates, as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) usimg Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: We identified 69 patients between 2005 and 2016 who met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at study entry was 75.5 years; mean tumour maximal dimension at study entry was 5.6 cm. CSS was 83% and OS 63% for patients presenting without metastasis, with a mean followup of 57.5 months. The mean growth rate of those that developed metastasis during followup (n=15) was 0.98 cm/year (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.63) as compared to those that did not develop metastasis (n=46), with a growth rate of 0.67 cm/year (95% CI 0.34-1) (non-significant). Seven patients had evidence of metastasis at the baseline imaging of their LRM and had subsequent growth rate of 1.47 cm/year (95% CI 0.37-2.57) (non-significant) CONCLUSIONS: Compared to small renal masses, LRM are associated with higher metastasis rates and lower CSS and more rapid growth rates. Selection criteria for recommending observation of LRM in older, comorbid patients should be more conservative than for small renal masses.
INTRODUCTION: The natural history of small renal masses has been well defined, leading to the recommendation of active surveillance in some patients with limited life expectancy. However, this information is less clear for large renal masses (LRM), leading to ambiguity for management in the older, comorbid patient. The objective of this study was to define the natural history, including the growth rate and metastatic risk, of LRM in order to better counsel patients regarding active surveillance. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with solid renal masses >4 cm that had repeated imaging identified from an institutional imaging database. Patient comorbidities and outcomes were obtained through retrospective chart analysis. Outcomes assessed included tumour growth and metastatic rates, as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) usimg Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: We identified 69 patients between 2005 and 2016 who met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at study entry was 75.5 years; mean tumour maximal dimension at study entry was 5.6 cm. CSS was 83% and OS 63% for patients presenting without metastasis, with a mean followup of 57.5 months. The mean growth rate of those that developed metastasis during followup (n=15) was 0.98 cm/year (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.63) as compared to those that did not develop metastasis (n=46), with a growth rate of 0.67 cm/year (95% CI 0.34-1) (non-significant). Seven patients had evidence of metastasis at the baseline imaging of their LRM and had subsequent growth rate of 1.47 cm/year (95% CI 0.37-2.57) (non-significant) CONCLUSIONS: Compared to small renal masses, LRM are associated with higher metastasis rates and lower CSS and more rapid growth rates. Selection criteria for recommending observation of LRM in older, comorbid patients should be more conservative than for small renal masses.
Authors: Michael A S Jewett; Ricardo Rendon; Louis Lacombe; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Simon Tanguay; Wassim Kassouf; Mike Leveridge; Ilias Cagiannos; Anil Kapoor; Stephen Pautler; Darrel Drachtenberg; Ronald Moore; Martin Gleave; Andrew Evans; Massoom Haider; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Akachimere C Uzosike; Hiten D Patel; Ridwan Alam; Zeyad R Schwen; Mohit Gupta; Michael A Gorin; Michael H Johnson; Heather Gausepohl; Mark F Riffon; Bruce J Trock; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; James M McKiernan; Mohamad E Allaf; Phillip M Pierorazio Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Adam C Mues; George Haramis; Ketan Badani; Mantu Gupta; Mitchell C Benson; James M McKiernan; Jaime Landman Journal: Urology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ross J Mason; Mohamed Abdolell; Greg Trottier; Christopher Pringle; Joseph G Lawen; David G Bell; Michael A S Jewett; Laurence Klotz; Ricardo A Rendon Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-02-22 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: Michael Organ; Michael Jewett; Joan Basiuk; Christopher Morash; Stephen Pautler; D Robert Siemens; Simon Tanguay; Martin Gleave; Darrell Drachenberg; Raymond Chow; Joseph Chin; Andrew Evans; Neil Fleshner; Brenda Gallie; Masoom Haider; John Kachura; Antonio Finelli; Ricardo A Rendon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862