Re: Excise, ablate or observe: The small renal mass dilemma - A meta-analysis and review - Reply
ABSTRACT The incidence of renal cell carcinoma is increasing due to the incidental detection of small renal masses. Resection, predominantly by nephron sparing surgery, remains the standard of care due to its durable oncological outcomes. Active surveillance and ablative technologies have emerged as alternatives to surgery in select patients. We performed a meta-analysis of published data evaluating nephron sparing surgery, cryoablation, radio frequency ablation and observation for small renal masses to define the current data.
A MEDLINE search was performed for clinically localized sporadic renal masses. Patient age, tumor size, duration of followup, available pathological data and oncological outcomes were evaluated.
A total of 99 studies representing 6,471 lesions were analyzed. Significant differences in mean patient age (p <0.001), tumor size (p <0.001) and followup duration (p <0.001) were detected among treatment modalities. The incidence of unknown/indeterminate pathological findings was significantly different among cryoablation, radio frequency ablation and observation (p = 0.003), and a significant difference in the rates of malignancy among lesions with known pathological results was detected (p = 0.001). Compared to nephron sparing surgery significantly increased local progression rates were calculated for cryoablation (RR = 7.45) and radio frequency ablation (RR = 18.23). However, no statistical differences were detected in the incidence of metastatic progression regardless of whether lesions were excised, ablated or observed.
Nephron sparing surgery, ablation and surveillance are viable strategies for small renal masses based on short-term and intermediate term oncological outcomes. However, a significant selection bias exists in the application of these techniques. While long-term data have demonstrated durable outcomes for nephron sparing surgery, extended oncological efficacy is lacking for ablation and surveillance strategies. The extent to which treatment alters the natural history of small renal masses is not yet established.
SourceAvailable from: Mark W Ball[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A growing body of retrospective literature is emerging regarding active surveillance (AS) for patients with small renal masses (SRMs). There are limited prospective data evaluating the effectiveness of AS compared to primary intervention (PI). To determine the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who chose AS for management of their SRM. From 2009 to 2014, the multi-institutional Delayed Intervention and Surveillance for Small Renal Masses (DISSRM) registry prospectively enrolled 497 patients with solid renal masses ≤4.0cm who chose PI or AS. AS versus PI. The registry was designed and powered as a noninferiority study based on historic recurrence rates for PI. Analyses were performed in an intention-to-treat manner. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Of the 497 patients enrolled, 274 (55%) chose PI and 223 (45%) chose AS, of whom 21 (9%) crossed over to delayed intervention. AS patients were older, had worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores, total comorbidities, and cardiovascular comorbidities, had smaller tumors, and more often had multiple and bilateral lesions. OS for PI and AS was 98% and 96% at 2 yr, and 92% and 75% at 5 yr, respectively (log rank, p=0.06). At 5 yr, CSS was 99% and 100% for PI and AS, respectively (p=0.3). AS was not predictive of OS or CSS in regression modeling with relatively short follow-up. In a well-selected cohort with up to 5 yr of prospective follow-up, AS was not inferior to PI. The current report is among the first prospective analyses of patients electing for active surveillance of a small renal mass. Discussion of active surveillance should become part of the standard discussion for management of small renal masses. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.European Urology 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.001 · 12.48 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common subtype of renal cell cancer (RCC), followed by papillary RCC (pRCC). It is important to distinguish these two subtypes because of prognostic differences and possible changes in management, especially in cases undergoing active surveillance. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the use of voxel-based whole-lesion (WL) enhancement parameters on contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) to distinguish ccRCC from pRCC. In this institutional review board-approved study, we retrospectively queried the surgical database for post nephrectomy patients who had pathology proven ccRCC or pRCC and who had preoperative multiphase CECT of the abdomen between June 2009 and June 2011. A total of 61 patients (46 with ccRCC and 15 with pRCC) who underwent robotic assisted partial nephrectomy for clinically localized disease were included in the study. Multiphase CT acquisitions were transferred to a dedicated three-dimensional workstation, and WL regions of interest were manually segmented. Voxel-based contrast enhancement values were collected from the lesion segmentation and displayed as a histogram. Mean and median enhancement and histogram distribution parameters skewness, kurtosis, standard deviation, and interquartile range were calculated for each lesion. Comparison between ccRCC and pRCC was made using each imaging parameter. For mean and median enhancement, which had a normal distribution, independent t-test was used. For histogram distribution parameters, which were not normally distributed, Wilcoxon rank sum test was used. ccRCC had significantly higher mean and median whole WL enhancement (p < 0.01) compared to pRCC on arterial, nephrographic, and excretory phases. ccRCC had significantly higher interquartile range and standard deviation (p < 0.01) and significantly lower skewness (p < 0.01) compared to pRCC on arterial and nephrographic phases. ccRCC had significantly lower kurtosis compared to pRCC on only the arterial phase. Our study suggests that voxel-based WL enhancement parameters can be used as a quantitative tool to differentiate ccRCC from pRCC. Differentiating between the two main types of RCC would provide the patient and the treating physicians more information to formulate the initial approach to managing the patient's renal cancer.SpringerPlus 12/2015; 4(1). DOI:10.1186/s40064-015-0823-z
DMW - Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 02/2010; 135(06):245-249. DOI:10.1055/s-0029-1244841 · 0.55 Impact Factor