PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging for monitoring small (< 4 cm) renal masses (SRM) in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS). METHODS: We retrospectively selected all consecutive patients with SRMs who underwent AS for at least 6 months at our Institution between January 2014 and December 2018. CEUS imaging was performed by two experienced genitourinary radiologists at established time points. The accuracy of CEUS for monitoring SRM size was compared with that of CT scan. For solid SRMs, four enhancement patterns (EP) were recorded. Radiological progression was defined as SRM growth rate ≥ 5 mm/year. RESULTS: Overall, 158/1049 (15.1%) patients with SRMs underwent AS. At a median follow-up of 25 months (IQR 13-39), no patient died due to renal cell carcinoma (RCC). No patients experienced CEUS-related adverse events. There was a large variability in the pattern of growth of SRMs (overall median growth rate: 0.40 mm/year), with 9.5% of SRMs showing radiological progression. The median SRM size was comparable between CEUS and CT scan examinations at all time points. The vast majority (92.7%) of SRMs did not show a change in their EP over time; and there was no association between the SRM's EP and radiological progression or SRM size. Overall, 43 (27.2%) patients underwent delayed intervention (DI); median SRM size, and median growth rate were significantly higher in these patients as compared to those continuing AS. CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, CEUS is a safe and effective strategy for active monitoring of SRMs in well-selected patients undergoing AS.
PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging for monitoring small (< 4 cm) renal masses (SRM) in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS). METHODS: We retrospectively selected all consecutive patients with SRMs who underwent AS for at least 6 months at our Institution between January 2014 and December 2018. CEUS imaging was performed by two experienced genitourinary radiologists at established time points. The accuracy of CEUS for monitoring SRM size was compared with that of CT scan. For solid SRMs, four enhancement patterns (EP) were recorded. Radiological progression was defined as SRM growth rate ≥ 5 mm/year. RESULTS: Overall, 158/1049 (15.1%) patients with SRMs underwent AS. At a median follow-up of 25 months (IQR 13-39), no patient died due to renal cell carcinoma (RCC). No patients experienced CEUS-related adverse events. There was a large variability in the pattern of growth of SRMs (overall median growth rate: 0.40 mm/year), with 9.5% of SRMs showing radiological progression. The median SRM size was comparable between CEUS and CT scan examinations at all time points. The vast majority (92.7%) of SRMs did not show a change in their EP over time; and there was no association between the SRM's EP and radiological progression or SRM size. Overall, 43 (27.2%) patients underwent delayed intervention (DI); median SRM size, and median growth rate were significantly higher in these patients as compared to those continuing AS. CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, CEUS is a safe and effective strategy for active monitoring of SRMs in well-selected patients undergoing AS.
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: Meredith R Metcalf; Joseph G Cheaib; Michael J Biles; Hiten D Patel; Vanessa N Peña; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; James M McKiernan; Phillip M Pierorazio Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Maria Carmen Mir; Umberto Capitanio; Riccardo Bertolo; Idir Ouzaid; Maciej Salagierski; Maximilian Kriegmair; Alessandro Volpe; Michael A S Jewett; Alexander Kutikov; Phillip M Pierorazio Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-26
Authors: Steven Campbell; Robert G Uzzo; Mohamad E Allaf; Eric B Bass; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Anthony Chang; Peter E Clark; Brian J Davis; Ithaar H Derweesh; Leo Giambarresi; Debra A Gervais; Susie L Hu; Brian R Lane; Bradley C Leibovich; Philip M Pierorazio Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Phillip M Pierorazio; Michael H Johnson; Mark W Ball; Michael A Gorin; Bruce J Trock; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; James M McKiernan; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-02-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Riccardo Campi; Francesco Sessa; Francesco Corti; Diego M Carrion; Andrea Mari; Daniele Amparore; Maria C Mir; Cristian Fiori; Rocco Papalia; Alexander Kutikov; Alessandro Volpe; Umberto Capitanio; Phillip M Pierorazio; Roberto M Scarpa; Francesco Porpiglia; Andrea Minervini; Sergio Serni; Francesco Esperto Journal: Minerva Urol Nefrol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.720
Authors: Umberto Capitanio; Karim Bensalah; Axel Bex; Stephen A Boorjian; Freddie Bray; Jonathan Coleman; John L Gore; Maxine Sun; Christopher Wood; Paul Russo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 20.096