Hajime Tanaka1, Xiaobo Ding2, Yunlin Ye3, Yanbo Wang4, Rebecca A Campbell5, Molly E DeWitt-Foy5, Chalairat Suk-Ouichai6, Ryan D Ward7, Erick M Remer7, Jianbo Li8, Steven C Campbell9. 1. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Urology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. 2. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Radiology, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China. 3. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Urology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China. 4. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Urology, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China. 5. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 7. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 8. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 9. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: Campbes3@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of infiltrative renal masses (IRMs) and fidelity of documentation of infiltrative features remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence/significance of IRMs and assess whether infiltrative features were documented preoperatively. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 522 patients with renal tumors managed with partial/radical nephrectomy (2012-2014) whose pathology demonstrated locally advanced and/or aggressive histology were analyzed. Preoperative computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging was retrospectively/independently reviewed by two radiologists. IRMs were required to have a poorly defined interface with parenchyma and nonelliptical shape in one or more distinct/unequivocal areas. Infiltrative features were defined as extensive or focal. INTERVENTION: Partial/radical nephrectomy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) was estimated using cumulative-incidence analysis. Significant and independent predictors of CSM were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median tumor size was 6.9cm; renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) predominated (92%). Image review confirmed 133 IRMs (25%), including 103 RCCs; 59 had sarcomatoid or poorly differentiated features. IRMs were larger and more often symptomatic compared than non-IRMs, and disseminated disease was also more common for IRMs (all p<0.001). Overall, 109 IRMs were imaged at our center; 42 were documented as IRMs in preoperative radiology reports, while infiltrative features were not documented in 67 (61%). Only four (6%) of these 67 were documented as infiltrative by the surgical team. Infiltrative features were more often focal in undocumented IRMs. On multivariable analysis, infiltrative features, disseminated disease, and non-RCC histology were independent predictors of CSM (hazard ratio or HR [95% confidence interval {CI}]=1.73 [1.21-2.47], 2.98 [2.10-4.23], and 2.79 [1.86-4.62], respectively). Among IRMs, extensive infiltrative features and disseminated disease were associated with CSM (HR [95% CI]=1.98 [1.27-3.07] and 2.35 [1.52-3.63], respectively), while documentation status failed to show an association. Excluding patients with disseminated disease or residual cancer after surgery, recurrence rates were 62% for IRMs versus 22% for non-IRMs (p<0.001), and there was again no significant difference between documented and undocumented IRMs (p=0.36). Limitations include a retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-five percent of locally advanced/histologically aggressive renal tumors exhibited infiltrative features, although many were not documented as IRMs. Among this high-risk surgical population, infiltrative features were independent predictors of CSM, irrespective of whether they were documented or not. Our data suggest that infiltrative features should be assessed and documented routinely during evaluation of renal masses. PATIENT SUMMARY: Infiltrative renal masses may be more common than previously appreciated, although many were not documented as infiltrative during preoperative evaluation. Our data suggest that infiltrative features have a strong impact on prognosis and should be assessed and documented routinely during radiologic and clinical evaluation of renal masses.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of infiltrative renal masses (IRMs) and fidelity of documentation of infiltrative features remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence/significance of IRMs and assess whether infiltrative features were documented preoperatively. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 522 patients with renal tumors managed with partial/radical nephrectomy (2012-2014) whose pathology demonstrated locally advanced and/or aggressive histology were analyzed. Preoperative computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging was retrospectively/independently reviewed by two radiologists. IRMs were required to have a poorly defined interface with parenchyma and nonelliptical shape in one or more distinct/unequivocal areas. Infiltrative features were defined as extensive or focal. INTERVENTION: Partial/radical nephrectomy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) was estimated using cumulative-incidence analysis. Significant and independent predictors of CSM were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median tumor size was 6.9cm; renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) predominated (92%). Image review confirmed 133 IRMs (25%), including 103 RCCs; 59 had sarcomatoid or poorly differentiated features. IRMs were larger and more often symptomatic compared than non-IRMs, and disseminated disease was also more common for IRMs (all p<0.001). Overall, 109 IRMs were imaged at our center; 42 were documented as IRMs in preoperative radiology reports, while infiltrative features were not documented in 67 (61%). Only four (6%) of these 67 were documented as infiltrative by the surgical team. Infiltrative features were more often focal in undocumented IRMs. On multivariable analysis, infiltrative features, disseminated disease, and non-RCC histology were independent predictors of CSM (hazard ratio or HR [95% confidence interval {CI}]=1.73 [1.21-2.47], 2.98 [2.10-4.23], and 2.79 [1.86-4.62], respectively). Among IRMs, extensive infiltrative features and disseminated disease were associated with CSM (HR [95% CI]=1.98 [1.27-3.07] and 2.35 [1.52-3.63], respectively), while documentation status failed to show an association. Excluding patients with disseminated disease or residual cancer after surgery, recurrence rates were 62% for IRMs versus 22% for non-IRMs (p<0.001), and there was again no significant difference between documented and undocumented IRMs (p=0.36). Limitations include a retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-five percent of locally advanced/histologically aggressive renal tumors exhibited infiltrative features, although many were not documented as IRMs. Among this high-risk surgical population, infiltrative features were independent predictors of CSM, irrespective of whether they were documented or not. Our data suggest that infiltrative features should be assessed and documented routinely during evaluation of renal masses. PATIENT SUMMARY: Infiltrative renal masses may be more common than previously appreciated, although many were not documented as infiltrative during preoperative evaluation. Our data suggest that infiltrative features have a strong impact on prognosis and should be assessed and documented routinely during radiologic and clinical evaluation of renal masses.
Authors: Paul Lloyd; Anne Hong; Marc A Furrer; Elaine W Y Lee; Harveer S Dev; Maurice H Coret; James M Adshead; Peter Baldwin; Richard Knight; Jonathan Shamash; Constantine Alifrangis; Sara Stoneham; Danish Mazhar; Han Wong; Anne Warren; Ben Tran; Nathan Lawrentschuk; David E Neal; Benjamin C Thomas Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Haidar Abdul-Muhsin; Nicholas Rocco; Anojan Navaratnam; Michael Woods; James L'Esperance; Erik Castle; Sean Stroup Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: J L H Ruud Bosch; Joost M Blok; Henk G van der Poel; J Martijn Kerst; Axel Bex; Oscar R Brouwer; Simon Horenblas; Richard P Meijer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 4.226