Abstract
Purpose
To provide our experience with active surveillance in patients incidentally diagnosed with small renal masses and show the results of long-term follow-up.
Patients and methods
We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of 42 patients diagnosed with small renal mass (≤4 cm in diameter). All patients had clinical and radiological follow-up every 6 months. We evaluated the differences between patients who remained on surveillance and those who underwent surgical delayed intervention and the correlations between clinical variables and size growth rate.
Results
The mean patients’ age was 75 years (66–90); the mean follow-up was 69.4 months (range 35–168). The median initial tumor size at presentation was 2.5 cm (range 1–4.3), and the median estimated tumor volume was 8.6 cm3 (range 1.7–42.3). The median growth rate of the cohort was 0.8 cm/year (range 0.2–2.9), and the median volumetric growth rate was 9.1 cm3/year (range 0–19.6). Death for metastatic disease occurred in 2 patients died due to metastatic disease (4.7 %). No correlation was found between initial tumor size and size growth rate. The mean growth rate of the group of patients who underwent surgery was higher than in those who remained on surveillance (1.8 vs. 0.4 cm/year; P < 0.001).
Conclusions
The most of small renal masses initially managed by surveillance will grow slowly and will have a low metastatic potential. Tumor size at diagnosis is not able to predict the natural history of renal masses, even if malignant disease may have a higher growth rate. In elderly patients with relevant co-morbidities, surveillance can be a reasonable option alternative to surgery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90
Lane BR, Novick AC (2007) Nephron-sparing surgery. BJU Int 99:1245–1250
Drucker BJ (2005) Renal cell carcinoma: current status and future prospects. Cancer Treat Rev 1:536–545
Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC et al (2010) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 58:398–404
Derweesh IH, Novick AC (2003) Small renal tumors: natural history, observation strategies and emerging modalities of energy based tumor ablation. Can J Urol 10:1871–1879
Heuer R, Gill IS, Guazzoni G et al (2010) A critical analysis of the actual role of minimally invasive surgery and active surveillance for kidney cancer. Eur Urol 57:223–232
Vasudevan A, Davies RJ, Shannon BA et al (2006) Incidental renal tumours: the frequency of benign lesions and the role of reoperative core biopsy. BJU Int 97:946–949
Rosales JC, Haramis G, Moreno J et al (2010) Active surveillance for renal cortical neoplasms. J Urol 183:1698–1702
Volpe A, Panzarella T, Rendon RA et al (2004) The natural history of incidentally detected small renal masses. Cancer 100:738–745
Mason RJ, Abdolell M, Trottier G et al (2011) Growth kinetics of renal masses: analysis of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing active surveillance. Eur Urol 59:863–867
Jewett MA, Zuniga A (2008) Renal tumor natural history: the rationale and role for active surveillance. Urol Clin North Am 35:627–634
Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC (2000) Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol 163:442–445
Van Poppel H, Joniau S (2007) Is surveillance an option for the treatment of small renal masses? Eur Urol 52:1323–1330
Crispen PL, Viterbo R, Fox EB et al (2008) Delayed intervention of sporadic renal masses undergoing active surveillance. Cancer 112:1051–1057
Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG (2008) Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma—a meta analysis and review. J Urol 179:1227–1233
Remzi M, Javadli E, Özsoy M (2010) Management of small renal masses: a review. World J Urol 28:275–281
Lane BR, Tobert CM, Riedinger CB (2012) Growth kinetics and active surveillance for small renal masses. Curr Opin Urol 22:353–359
Pierorazio PM, Hyams ES, Mullins JK et al (2012) Active surveillance for small renal masses. Rev Urol 14(1/2):13–19
Gontero P, Joniau S, Oderda M et al (2012) Active surveillance for small renal tumors: have clinical concerns been addressed so far? Int J Urol. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.03227.x
Abou Youssif T, Kassouf W, Steinberg J et al (2007) Active surveillance for selected patients with renal masses: updated results with long-term follow-up. Cancer 110:1010–1014
Duchene DA, Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA et al (2003) Histopathology of surgically managed renal tumors: analysis of a contemporary series. Urology 62:827–830
Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DY et al (2007) Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol 177:849–853
Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170:2217–2220
Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL et al (2006) The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 175:425–431
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brunocilla, E., Borghesi, M., Monti, C. et al. Surveillance for small renal masses: retrospective analysis of a cohort of 42 patients with long-term follow-up. Int Urol Nephrol 45, 307–312 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0389-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0389-z