Skip to main content

Financial Considerations in the Management of Small Renal Masses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Renal Mass Biopsy
  • 336 Accesses

Abstract

The incidence of small renal masses (SRM) is increasing in recent years due to more frequent use of abdominal imaging, consequentially conferring higher costs on the health system. As costs increase, financial considerations will have a significant impact on the availability of treatments and technologies. Recognizing and understanding these considerations is important for the treating physician. In this chapter, we will explain the basic terminology and concepts of cost analysis and provide a review of current literature assessing the cost of several treatment options for the management of SRMs including surveillance, the use of biopsies to guide treatment, and different ablative and surgical techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Keehan SP, Stone DA, Poisal JA, Cuckler GA, Sisko AM, Smith SD, et al. National health expenditure projections, 2016–25: price increases, aging push sector to 20 percent of economy. Health Aff. 2017;36(3):553–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sun M, Thuret R, Abdollah F, Lughezzani G, Schmitges J, Tian Z, et al. Age-adjusted incidence, mortality, and survival rates of stage-specific renal cell carcinoma in North America: A trend analysis. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):135–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Richard PO, Jewett MAS, Bhatt JR, Kachura JR, Evans AJ, Zlotta AR, et al. Renal tumor biopsy for small renal masses: a single-center 13-year experience. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1007–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson DC, Vukina J, Smith AB, Meyer A-M, Wheeler SB, Kuo T-M, et al. Preoperatively misclassified, surgically removed benign renal masses: a systematic review of surgical series and United States population level burden estimate. J Urol. 2015;193(1):30–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, Bass EB, Cadeddu JA, Chang A, et al. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2017;198(3):520–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA. A cost comparison of nephron-sparing surgical techniques for renal tumour. BJU Int. 2005;95(7):1039–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lotan Y, Haddad AQ, Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Rofsky NM, Roehrborn CG. Decision analysis model comparing cost of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. repeat biopsy for detection of prostate cancer in men with prior negative findings on biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(6):266.e9–e16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang SL, Cipriano LE, Harshman LC, Garber AM, Chung BI. Cost-effectiveness analysis of nephron sparing options for the management of small renal masses. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1591–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lotan Y, A Cadeddu J, T Gettman M. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1431–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. International comparison of cost effectiveness of medical management strategies for nephrolithiasis. Urol Res. 2005;33(3):223–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Svatek RS, Lotan Y. Cost utility of prostate cancer chemoprevention with dutasteride in men with an elevated prostate specific antigen. Cancer Prev Res. 2011;4(2):277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lotan Y, Duchene DA, Cadeddu JA, Koeneman KS. Cost comparison of hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: analysis of individual parameters. J Urol. 2003;170(3):752–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lotan Y, Gettman MT, Roehrborn CG, Pearle MS, Cadeddu JA. Cost comparison for laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: analysis of individual parameters. Urology. 2002;59(6):821–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mir SA, Cadeddu JA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):447–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, Hofmann F, Stewart F, Norrie J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):660–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pandharipande PV, Gervais DA, Hartman RI, Harisinghani MG, Feldman AS, Mueller PR, et al. Renal mass biopsy to guide treatment decisions for small incidental renal tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology. 2010;256(3):836–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Patel HD, Sozio SM, Sharma R, Iyoha E, et al. Management of renal masses and localized renal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2016;196(4):989–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Patel HD, Johnson MH, Pierorazio PM, Sozio SM, Sharma R, Iyoha E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and risks of biopsy in the diagnosis of a renal mass suspicious for localized renal cell carcinoma: systematic review of the literature. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1340–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dutta R, Okhunov Z, Vernez SL, Kaler K, Gulati AT, Youssef RF, et al. Cost comparisons between different techniques of percutaneous renal biopsy for small renal masses. J Endourol. 2016;30(Suppl 1):S28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Heilbrun ME, Yu J, Smith KJ, Dechet CB, Zagoria RJ, Roberts MS. The cost-effectiveness of immediate treatment, percutaneous biopsy and active surveillance for the diagnosis of the small solid renal mass: evidence from a Markov model. J Urol. 2012;187(1):39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Castle SM, Gorbatiy V, Avallone MA, Eldefrawy A, Caulton DE, Leveillee RJ. Cost comparison of nephron-sparing treatments for cT1a renal masses. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1327–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Alemozaffar M, Chang SL, Kacker R, Sun M, DeWolf WC, Wagner AA. Comparing costs of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(5):560–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pandharipande PV, Gervais DA, Mueller PR, Hur C, Gazelle GS. Radiofrequency ablation versus nephron-sparing surgery for small unilateral renal cell carcinoma: cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology. 2008;248(1):169–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lotan Y. The future of nephron sparing procedures for renal masses: balancing costs, efficacy, patient outcomes and experience. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1560–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yair Lotan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Freifeld, Y., Lotan, Y. (2020). Financial Considerations in the Management of Small Renal Masses. In: Leveillee, R., Jorda, M. (eds) Renal Mass Biopsy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36036-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36036-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36035-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36036-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics