Giacomo Rebez1, Nicola Pavan1, M Carmen Mir2. 1. Urology Clinic, Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Science, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 2. Department of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain. mirmare@yahoo.es.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate follow-up strategies for active surveillance of renal masses and to assess contemporary data. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Embase, Medline, and Cochrane). A systematic review of the follow-up protocols was carried out. A total of 20 studies were included. RESULT: Our analysis highlights that most of the series used different protocols of follow-up without consistent differences in the outcomes. Most common protocol consisted in imaging and clinical evaluation at 3, 6, and 12 months and yearly thereafter. Median length of follow-up was 42 months (range 1-137). Mean age was 74 years (range 67-83). Of 2243 patients 223 (10%) died during the follow-up and 19 patients died of kidney cancer (0.8%). The growth rate was the most used parameter to evaluate disease progression eventually triggering delayed intervention. Maximal axial diameter was the most common method to evaluate growth rate. CT scan is the most used, probably because it is usually more precise than kidney ultrasound and more accessible than MRI. Performing chest X-ray at every check does not seem to alter the clinical outcome during AS. CONCLUSION: The minimal cancer-specific mortality does not seem to correlate with the follow-up scheme. Outside of growth rate and initial size, imaging features to predict outcome of RCC during AS are limited. Active surveillance of SRM is a well-established treatment option. However, standardized follow-up protocols are lacking. Prospective, randomized, trials to evaluate the best follow-up strategies are pending.
PURPOSE: To evaluate follow-up strategies for active surveillance of renal masses and to assess contemporary data. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Embase, Medline, and Cochrane). A systematic review of the follow-up protocols was carried out. A total of 20 studies were included. RESULT: Our analysis highlights that most of the series used different protocols of follow-up without consistent differences in the outcomes. Most common protocol consisted in imaging and clinical evaluation at 3, 6, and 12 months and yearly thereafter. Median length of follow-up was 42 months (range 1-137). Mean age was 74 years (range 67-83). Of 2243 patients 223 (10%) died during the follow-up and 19 patients died of kidney cancer (0.8%). The growth rate was the most used parameter to evaluate disease progression eventually triggering delayed intervention. Maximal axial diameter was the most common method to evaluate growth rate. CT scan is the most used, probably because it is usually more precise than kidney ultrasound and more accessible than MRI. Performing chest X-ray at every check does not seem to alter the clinical outcome during AS. CONCLUSION: The minimal cancer-specific mortality does not seem to correlate with the follow-up scheme. Outside of growth rate and initial size, imaging features to predict outcome of RCC during AS are limited. Active surveillance of SRM is a well-established treatment option. However, standardized follow-up protocols are lacking. Prospective, randomized, trials to evaluate the best follow-up strategies are pending.
Authors: Antonio Finelli; Nofisat Ismaila; Bill Bro; Jeremy Durack; Scott Eggener; Andrew Evans; Inderbir Gill; David Graham; William Huang; Michael A S Jewett; Sheron Latcha; William Lowrance; Mitchell Rosner; Bobby Shayegan; R Houston Thompson; Robert Uzzo; Paul Russo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marc C Smaldone; Alexander Kutikov; Brian L Egleston; Daniel J Canter; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Michael A Jewett; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Georgios Haramis; Adam C Mues; Juan Carlos Rosales; Zhamshid Okhunov; Alberto Perez Lanzac; Ketan Badani; Mantu Gupta; Mitchell C Benson; James McKiernan; Jaime Landman Journal: Urology Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Rajiv Puri; Victor Palit; Paul M Loadman; Michael Flannigan; Tariq Shah; Guzanfar A Choudry; Saurajyoti Basu; John A Double; Gino Lenaz; Shanta Chawla; Mario Beer; Coen Van Kalken; Richard de Boer; Jos H Beijnen; Christopher J Twelves; Roger M Phillips Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Katherine Mallin; Jamie Ritchey; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alessandro Volpe; Tony Panzarella; Ricardo A Rendon; Masoom A Haider; Filippos I Kondylis; Michael A S Jewett Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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