Literature DB >> 32734748

Triggers for delayed intervention in patients with small renal masses undergoing active surveillance: a systematic review.

Riccardo Campi1,2,3, Francesco Sessa4,5, Francesco Corti4, Diego M Carrion6,7, Andrea Mari4,5, Daniele Amparore8, Maria C Mir9, Cristian Fiori8, Rocco Papalia10, Alexander Kutikov11, Alessandro Volpe12, Umberto Capitanio13, Phillip M Pierorazio14, Roberto M Scarpa10, Francesco Porpiglia8, Andrea Minervini4,5, Sergio Serni4,5, Francesco Esperto6,10.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Patients with small renal masses (SRM) can be exposed to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. As such, active surveillance (AS) is recommended by all Guidelines for selected patients. However, it remains underutilized. One key reason is the lack of consensus on the factors prompting delayed intervention (DI). Herein we provide an updated overview of the triggers for DI in patients with SRMs initially undergoing AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed according to the PRISMA statement recommendations using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 10 prospective studies including 1870 patients were included. Median patient age ranged between 64 and 75 years, while median tumor size between 1.7 cm to 2.3 cm. The proportion of cystic SRMs ranged from 0% to 30%. Baseline renal tumor biopsy was performed in 7-45.2% of patients. Among these, malignant histology was found in 28.5%-83.3% of cases. Overall, the median growth rate of SRMs ranged between 0.10 and 0.27 cm/year. The proportion of patients undergoing DI ranged between 7% and 44%, after a median AS period of 12-27 months. The most commonly performed type of DI was surgery. Of resected SRMs, 0% to 30% were benign. The actual triggers for DI were either tumor-related (renal mass growth, stage progression, development of local complications/symptoms) or patient-related (patient preference, improved medical conditions, or qualification for other surgical procedures). At a median follow-up of 21.7 - 57-6 months, the proportion of patients experiencing metastatic disease, cancer-specific and other-cause mortality was 0-3.1%, 0-4% and 0-45.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence shows that both tumor-related and patient-related factors are ultimate triggers for DI in patients with SRMs undergoing AS. However, the level of evidence is still low and further research is needed to individualize AS strategies according to both tumor biology and patient-related characteristics and values.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32734748     DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03870-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minerva Urol Nefrol        ISSN: 0393-2249            Impact factor:   3.720


  8 in total

Review 1.  Benefit and Harm of Active Surveillance for Biopsy-proven Renal Oncocytoma: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.

Authors:  Michael Baboudjian; Daniel Moser; Takafumi Yanagisawa; Bastien Gondran-Tellier; Eva M Compérat; Damien Ambrosetti; Laurent Daniel; Cyrille Bastide; Shahrokh F Shariat; Eric Lechevallier; Pietro Diana; Alberto Breda; Benjamin Pradere; Romain Boissier
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-05-19

2.  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

3.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging for active surveillance of small renal masses.

Authors:  Vittorio Miele; Simone Agostini; Sergio Serni; Riccardo Campi; Elena Bertelli; Alberto Palombella; Francesco Sessa; Irene Baldi; Noemi Morelli; Silvia Verna; Isabella Greco; Simone Morselli; Alessandro Pili; Arcangelo Sebastianelli; Alessandro Berni; Rossella Nicoletti; Andrea Minervini; Marco Carini; Mauro Gacci
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Biomarkers for Renal Cell Carcinoma Recurrence: State of the Art.

Authors:  Michele Marchioni; Juan Gomez Rivas; Anamaria Autran; Moises Socarras; Simone Albisinni; Matteo Ferro; Luigi Schips; Roberto Mario Scarpa; Rocco Papalia; Francesco Esperto
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  The diagnostic utility of diffusion weighted MRI imaging and ADC ratio to distinguish benign from malignant renal masses: sorting the kittens from the tigers.

Authors:  Suresh de Silva; Kathleen Rebecca Lockhart; Peter Aslan; Peter Nash; Anthony Hutton; David Malouf; Dominic Lee; Paul Cozzi; Fiona MacLean; James Thompson
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 2.264

6.  The Diagnostic and Immunotherapeutic Value of CD248 in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Keying Zhang; Chao Xu; Shaojie Liu; Yao Jiang; Xiaolong Zhao; Shanjin Ma; Yu Li; Fa Yang; Yan Wang; Ping Meng; Changhong Shi; Donghui Han; Weihong Wen; Weijun Qin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 7.  Small renal masses in kidney transplantation: Overview of clinical impact and management in donors and recipients.

Authors:  Alberto Piana; Iulia Andras; Pietro Diana; Paolo Verri; Andrea Gallioli; Riccardo Campi; Thomas Prudhomme; Vital Hevia; Romain Boissier; Alberto Breda; Angelo Territo
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2022-06-10

Review 8.  Potential benefit of lymph node dissection during radical nephrectomy for kidney cancer: A review and critical analysis of current literature.

Authors:  Michele Marchioni; Daniele Amparore; Igino Andrea Magli; Riccardo Bertolo; Umberto Carbonara; Selcuk Erdem; Alexandre Ingels; Constantijn H J Muselaers; Onder Kara; Marco Mascitti; Tobias Klatte; Maximilian Kriegmair; Nicola Pavan; Eduard Roussel; Angela Pecoraro; Laura Marandino; Riccardo Campi; Luigi Schips
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2022-05-27
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.