Antonio Finelli1, Douglas C Cheung2, Ashraf Al-Matar2, Andrew J Evans3, Christopher G Morash4, Stephen E Pautler5, D Robert Siemens6, Simon Tanguay7, Ricardo A Rendon8, Martin E Gleave9, Darrel E Drachenberg10, Joseph L Chin5, Neil E Fleshner2, Masoom A Haider11, John R Kachura11, Jenna Sykes12, Michael A S Jewett2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: Antonio.Finelli@uhn.ca. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Pathology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. Divisions of Urology and Surgical Oncology, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 7. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 8. Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. 9. Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 10. Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 11. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Sinai Health System, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 12. Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most reports of active surveillance (AS) of small renal masses (SRMs) lack biopsy confirmation, and therefore include benign tumors and different subtypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). OBJECTIVE: We compared the growth rates and progression of different histologic subtypes of RCC SRMs (SRMRCC) in the largest cohort of patients with biopsy-characterized SRMs on AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from patients in a multicenter Canadian trial and a Princess Margaret cohort were combined to include 136 biopsy-proven SRMRCC lesions managed by AS, with treatment deferred until progression or patient/surgeon decision. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Growth curves were estimated from serial tumor size measures. Tumor progression was defined by sustained size ≥4 cm or volume doubling within 1 yr. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up for patients who remained on AS was 5.8 yr (interquartile range 3.4-7.5 yr). Clear cell RCC SRMs (SRMccRCC) grew faster than papillary type 1 SRMs (0.25 and 0.02 cm/yr on average, respectively, p = 0.0003). Overall, 60 SRMRCC lesions progressed: 49 (82%) by rapid growth (volume doubling), seven (12%) increasing to ≥4 cm, and four (6.7%) by both criteria. Six patients developed metastases, and all were of clear cell RCC histology. Limitations include the use of different imaging modalities and a lack of central imaging review. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor growth varies between histologic subtypes of SRMRCC and among SRMccRCC, which likely reflects individual host and tumor biology. Without validated biomarkers that predict this variation, initial follow-up of histologically characterized SRMs can inform personalized treatment for patients on AS. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many small kidney cancers are suitable for surveillance and can be monitored over time for change. We demonstrate that different types of kidney cancers grow at different rates and are at different risks of progression. These results may guide better personalized treatment.
BACKGROUND: Most reports of active surveillance (AS) of small renal masses (SRMs) lack biopsy confirmation, and therefore include benign tumors and different subtypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). OBJECTIVE: We compared the growth rates and progression of different histologic subtypes of RCC SRMs (SRMRCC) in the largest cohort of patients with biopsy-characterized SRMs on AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from patients in a multicenter Canadian trial and a Princess Margaret cohort were combined to include 136 biopsy-proven SRMRCC lesions managed by AS, with treatment deferred until progression or patient/surgeon decision. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Growth curves were estimated from serial tumor size measures. Tumor progression was defined by sustained size ≥4 cm or volume doubling within 1 yr. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up for patients who remained on AS was 5.8 yr (interquartile range 3.4-7.5 yr). Clear cell RCC SRMs (SRMccRCC) grew faster than papillary type 1 SRMs (0.25 and 0.02 cm/yr on average, respectively, p = 0.0003). Overall, 60 SRMRCC lesions progressed: 49 (82%) by rapid growth (volume doubling), seven (12%) increasing to ≥4 cm, and four (6.7%) by both criteria. Six patients developed metastases, and all were of clear cell RCC histology. Limitations include the use of different imaging modalities and a lack of central imaging review. CONCLUSIONS:Tumor growth varies between histologic subtypes of SRMRCC and among SRMccRCC, which likely reflects individual host and tumor biology. Without validated biomarkers that predict this variation, initial follow-up of histologically characterized SRMs can inform personalized treatment for patients on AS. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many small kidney cancers are suitable for surveillance and can be monitored over time for change. We demonstrate that different types of kidney cancers grow at different rates and are at different risks of progression. These results may guide better personalized treatment.
Authors: Patrick O Richard; Philippe D Violette; Bimal Bhindi; Rodney H Breau; Wassim Kassouf; Luke T Lavallée; Michael Jewett; John R Kachura; Anil Kapoor; Maxine Noel-Lamy; Michael Ordon; Stephen E Pautler; Frédéric Pouliot; Alan I So; Ricardo A Rendon; Simon Tanguay; Christine Collins; Maryam Kandi; Bobby Shayegan; Andrew Weller; Antonio Finelli; Andrea Kokorovic; Jay Nayak Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Douglas Cheung; Jed Frankel; Pavinder Tut; Maria Komisarenko; Lisa Martin; Michael Jewett; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Daniel M Geynisman; Jodi K Maranchie; Mark W Ball; Gennady Bratslavsky; Eric A Singer Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 2.954
Authors: Robert G Rasmussen; Yin Xi; R Carson Sibley; Christopher J Lee; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 6.582
Authors: Arnav Srivastava; Hiren V Patel; Sinae Kim; Brian Shinder; Joshua Sterling; Alexandra L Tabakin; Charles F Polotti; Biren Saraiya; Tina Mayer; Isaac Y Kim; Saum Ghodoussipour; Hiten D Patel; Thomas L Jang; Eric A Singer Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Jinkui Wang; Chenghao Zhanghuang; Xiaojun Tan; Tao Mi; Jiayan Liu; Liming Jin; Mujie Li; Zhaoxia Zhang; Dawei He Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-02-22