Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnosis and Treatment of Small Renal Masses: Where Do We Stand?

  • Kidney Diseases (G Ciancio, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To present an overview of the current evidence-based studies covering diagnostic and management of SRM.

Recent Findings

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents 3% of the cancers. Nowadays, partial nephrectomy (PN) represents gold standard treatment. New nephron-sparing approaches such as active surveillance and ablative therapies have been increasingly used as an alternative to surgical intervention. Due to novel comprehension of RCC and widespread use of imaging techniques, diagnosis at early stage in elderly patients has increased. Treatment decision-making should be based on patient and tumour characteristics.

Summary

With expanding treatment options, the management of SRMs has become a debate and should be adjusted to patient and tumour characteristics. In a shared decision manner, both active surveillance with possible delayed intervention and focal therapy should be discussed with the patient as an alternative to partial nephrectomy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1331–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Katz DL, Zheng T, Holford TR, et al. Time trends in the incidence of renal carcinoma: analysis of connecticut tumor registry data, 1935–1989. Int J Cancer. 1994;58:57–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910580111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. • Saad AM, Gad MM, Al-Husseini MJ, Ruhban IA, Sonbol MB, Ho TH. Trends in renal-cell carcinoma incidence and mortality in the United States in the last 2 decades: a SEER-Based Study. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17:46–57.e5. 104,584 cases reviewed about current database of RCC.

  4. • Escudier B, Porta C, Schmidinger M, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:706–720. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz056. Current clinical practice guidelines selected by expert authors.

  5. Roberts WW, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, et al. Pathological stage does not alter the prognosis for renal lesions determined to be stage T1 by computerized tomography. J Urol. 2005;173:713–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000153638.15018.58.

  6. Remzi M, Özsoy M, Klingler HC, et al. Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameter. J Urol. 2006;176:896–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol. 2003;170:2217–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000095475.12515.5e.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. Five-year survival after surgical treatment for kidney cancer: a population-based competing risk analysis. Cancer. 2007;109:1763–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. • Lane BR, Campbell SC, Gill IS. 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;190:44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.12.102. Long-term follow-up of oncologic outcomes.

  10. Kutikov A, Egleston BL, Canter D, et al. Competing risks of death in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma: a comorbidity based model. J Urol. 2012;188:2077–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Pierantoni F, Basso U, Maruzzo M, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is an independent prognostic factor in older patients with metastatic renal cell cancer treated with first-line Sunitinib or Pazopanib: a single center experience. J Geriatric Oncol. 2020;S18979–4068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.09.009. Update prognostic factor for geriatric population assessment with RCC.

  12. Jung SC, Cho JY, Kim SH. Subtype differentiation of small renal cell carcinomas on three-phase MDCT: usefulness of the measurement of degree and heterogeneity of enhancement. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:112–8. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.110221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fujimoto H, Wakao F, Moriyama N, et al. Alveolar architecture of clear cell renal carcinomas (≤5.0 cm) show high attenuation on dynamic CT scanning. Japanese J Clin Oncol. 1999;29:198–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/29.4.198.

  14. Ruppert-Kohlmayr AJ, Uggowitzer M, Meissnitzer T, et al. Differentiation of renal clear cell carcinoma and renal papillary carcinoma using quantitative CT enhancement parameters. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1387–91. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jung SC, Cho JY, Kim SH. Subtype differentiation of small renal cell carcinomas on three-phase MDCT: Usefulness of the measurement of degree and heterogeneity of enhancement. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:112–8. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.110221.Three-phaseMDCTsubtypedifferentiation.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Millet I, Doyon FC, Hoa D, et al. Characterization of small solid renal lesions: can benign and malignant tumors be differentiated with CT? Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:887–96. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.6276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. • Kay FU, Pedrosa I. Imaging of Solid Renal Masses. Urologic Clinics of North America. W.B. Saunders; 2018;45:311–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2018.03.013. Recent advantages in cross-sectional imaging.

  18. Agnello F, Roy C, Bazille G, et al. Small solid renal masses: characterization by diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T. Clin Radiol. 2013;68:301–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kang SK, Zhang A, Pandharipande P, et al. DWI for renal mass characterization: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:317 324. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13930

  20. • Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol. 2009;182:844–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035. One of the most widely used renal complexity parameters in use today.

  21. •• Ficarra V, Porpiglia F, Crestani A, et al. The Simplified PADUA REnal (SPARE) nephrometry system: a novel classification of parenchymal renal tumours suitable for partial nephrectomy BJU Int. 2019;124:621–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14772. New simplified classification of renal complexity.

  22. • Okhunov Z, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, et al. The comparison of three renal tumor scoring systems: C-index, P.A.D.U.A., and R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores. J Endourol. 2011;25:1921–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0301. Comparison of the three most commonly used tools for the measurement of renal tumour complexity.

  23. Bruner B, Breau RH, Lohse CM, et al. Renal nephrometry score is associated with urine leak after partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09837.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69:660–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.072. Systematic review and a meta-analysis of the role of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy.

  25. Richard PO, Jewett MAS, Bhatt JR, et al. Renal tumor biopsy for small renal masses: a single-center 13-year experience. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1007–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.004. Long follow-up of thirteen years in renal tumour biopsy.

  26. Schmidbauer J, Remzi M, Memarsadeghi M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy of renal masses. Eur Urol. 2008;53:1003–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.041.

  27. Wagstaff PG, Swaan A, Ingels A, et al. In vivo, percutaneous, needle based, optical coherence tomography of renal masses. J Vis Exp. 2015;97:52574. https://doi.org/10.3791/52574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Veltri A, Garetto I, Tosetti I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of imaging-guided needle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150 cases. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:393–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1938-9.

  29. Breda A, Treat EG, Haft-Candell L, et al. Comparison of accuracy of 14-, 18- and 20-G needles in ex-vivo renal mass biopsy: a prospective, blinded study. BJU Int. 2010;105:940–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08989.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ball MW, Bezerra SM, Gorin MA, et al. Grade heterogeneity in small renal masses: potential implications for renal mass biopsy. J Urol. 2015;193:36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.06.067.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Macklin PS, Sullivan ME, Tapping CR, et al. Tumour seeding in the tract of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy: a report on seven cases from a UK Tertiary Referral Centre. Eur Urol. 2019;75:861–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Frank I, Blute ML, Leibovich BC, et al. Independent validation of the 2002 American Joint Committee on Cancer primary tumor classification for renal cell carcinoma using a large, single institution cohort. J Urol. 2005;173:1889–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000158043.94525.d6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, et al. Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol. 2014;65:372–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.044.Phase3randomizedtrial.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kates M, Badalato GM, Pitman M, et al. Increased risk of overall and cardiovascular mortality after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma 2 cm or less. J Urol. 2011;186:1247–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Huang WC, Elkin EB, Levey AS, et al. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors-is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes? J Urol. 2009;181:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.09.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sun M, Bianchi M, Trinh QD, et al. Comparison of partial vs radical nephrectomy with regard to other-cause mortality in T1 renal cell carcinoma among patients aged ≥75 years with multiple comorbidities. BJU Int. 2016;111:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11254.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. •• Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2011;59:543 552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.013. Prospective, randomized, prematurely closed clinical trial because of results with clinical impact.

  38. Minervini A, Carini M, Uzzo RG, et al. Standardized reporting of resection technique during nephron-sparing surgery: the surface-intermediate-base margin score. Eur Urol. 2014;66:803–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Carini M, Minervini A, Lapini A, et al. Simple enucleation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm in greatest dimension: progression and long-term survival. J Urol. 2006;175:2022–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00275-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. •• Minervini A, Campi R, Lane BR, et al. Impact of resection technique on perioperative outcomes and surgical margins after partial nephrectomy for localized renal masses: a prospective multicenter study. J Urol. 2020;203:496–504. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000591. Oncological results of new resection technique in a prospective multicenter study.

  41. Gong EM, Orvieto MA, Zorn KC, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T 1a renal tumors. J Endourol. 2008;22:953–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Marszalek M, Meixl H, Polajnar M, et al. Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1171–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. • Chang KD, Abdel Raheem A, Kim KH, et al. Functional and oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre comparative matched-pair analyses with a median of 5 years’ follow-up. BJU Int. 2018;122:618–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14250. Long-term follow-up of the three main approaches for the current treatment of small renal masses.

  44. Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Oger E, et al. Comparison of 1800 robotic and open partial nephrectomies for renal tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:4277–83. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5413-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. •• Mehra K, Manikandan R, Dorairajan LN, et al. Trifecta outcomes in open, laparoscopy or robotic partial nephrectomy: does the surgical approach matter? J Kidney Cancer VHL. 2019;6:8–12. https://doi.org/10.15586/jkcvhl.2019.115. Functional outcomes in the three main approaches of NSS.

  46. Kang M, Gong IH, Park HJ, et al. Predictive factors for achieving superior pentafecta outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. J Endourol. 2017;31:1231–1236. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0369. Prediction of functional outcomes in the three main approaches of NSS.

  47. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. A multifactorial postoperative surveillance model for patients with surgically treated clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2003;170:2225–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000095541.10333.a7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, et al. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol. 2006;175:425–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00148-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. • Bhindi B, Thompson RH, Lohse CM, et al. The probability of aggressive versus indolent histology based on renal tumor size: implications for surveillance and treatment. Eur Urol. 2018;74:489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.003. Implications of clinical behavior of renal masses depending on tumour size.

  50. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1331–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lane BR, Abouassaly R, Gao T, et al. Active treatment of localized renal tumors may not impact overall survival in patients aged 75 years or older. Cancer. 2010;116:3119–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DYT, et al. Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol. 2007;177:849–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Uzosike AC, Patel HD, Alam R, et al. Growth kinetics of small renal masses on active surveillance: variability and results from the DISSRM Registry. J Urol. 2018;199:641–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.087.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Smaldone MC, Kutikov A, Egleston BL, et al. Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Cancer. 2012;118:997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Jewett MAS, Mattar K, Basiuk J, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60:39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. • Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Ball MW, et al. Five-year analysis of a multi-institutional prospective clinical trial of delayed intervention and surveillance for small renal masses: the DISSRM Registry. Eur Urol. 2015;68:408–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.001. Multi-institutional prospective clinical trial with long follow-up.

  57. • Uchida M, Imaide Y, Sugimoto K, et al. Percutaneous cryosurgery for renal tumours. Br J Urol. 1995;75:132–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.1995.tb07297.x. First description of application of cryosurgery.

  58. • McGovern FJ, Wood BJ, Goldberg SN, et al. Radio frequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma via image guided needle electrodes. J Urol. 1999;16:599–600. First description of application of radiofrequency ablation.

  59. • Zhou W, Herwald SE, McCarthy C, et al. Radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and microwave ablation for t1a renal cell carcinoma: a comparative evaluation of therapeutic and renal function outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30:1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2018.12.013. Comparison of the three most widely used pf alternative active treatment.

  60. Atwell TD, Schmit GD, Boorjian SA, et al. Percutaneous ablation of renal masses measuring 3.0 cm and smaller: comparative local control and complications after radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:461–6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8618.

  61. Salas N, Ramanathan R, Dummett S, et al. Results of radiofrequency kidney tumor ablation: renal function preservation and oncologic efficacy. World J Urol. 2010;28:583–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0562-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Mylona S, Kokkinaki A, Pomoni M, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinomas in patients with solitary kidney: 6 years experience. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:351–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0562-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Arellano RS, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma: Part I, indications, results, and role in patient management over a 6-year period and ablation of 100 tumors. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:64–71. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.185.1.01850064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Watkins TW, Parkinson R. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal tumours: case series of 11 tumours and review of published work. Australas Radiol. 2007;51:412–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2007.01862.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lay AH, Faddegon S, Olweny EO, et al. Oncologic efficacy of radio frequency ablation for small renal masses: clear cell vs papillary subtype. J Urol. 2015;194:653–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. •• Rivero JR, de La Cerda J, Wang H, et al. Partial Nephrectomy versus thermal ablation for clinical stage T1 renal masses: systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 3,900 patients. J Vasc Interventional Radiol. 2018;29:18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2017.08.013. The only systematic-review compring partial nephrectomy and thermal ablation.

  67. •• Buijs M, Zondervan PJ, De Bruin DM, et al. Feasibility and safety of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in patients with small renal masses: results of a prospective study Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations [Internet]. 2019;37:183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.11.008. New treatment modality with high technical success rate.

  68. •• Siva S, Louie A v., Warner A, et al. Pooled analysis of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma: a report from the International Radiosurgery Oncology Consortium for Kidney (IROCK). Cancer. 2018;124:934–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31156. New emerging technique as an alternative option.

  69. •• Anele UA, Hampton LJ, Grob MB, et al. Prediction of aggressive histology: the ongoing dilemma of renal masses in the “omics” era. Eur Urol. Elsevier. 2018;498–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.046. Current dilemma of management of SRMs.

  70. Pedrosa I, Sun MR, Spencer M, Genega EM, Olumi AF, Dewolf WC, et al. MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with findings at surgery and pathologic analysis. Radiographics. 2008;28:985–1003. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.284065018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Pierorazio PM, Hyams ES, Tsai S, et al. Multiphasic enhancement patterns of small renal masses (≤4 cm) on preoperative computed tomography: utility for distinguishing subtypes of renal cell carcinoma, angiomyolipoma, and oncocytoma. Urology. 2013;8:1265–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Volpe A, Mattar K, Finelli A, et al. Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience. J Urol. 2008;180:2333–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Shannon BA, Cohen RJ, de Bruto H, et al. The value of preoperative needle core biopsy for diagnosing benign lesions among small, incidentally detected renal masses. J Urol. 2008;180:1257–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lane BR, Gill IS. 7-year oncological outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2010;183:473–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. • Luciani LG, Chiodini S, Mattevi D, et al. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy provides better operative outcomes as compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches: results from a prospective cohort study. J Robot Surg. 2017;11:333–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0660-2. Prospective study about robotic-assisted approach compared with open and laparoscopic.

  76. Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG. Excise, Ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma-a meta-analysis and review. J Urol. 2008;179:1227–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Pan XW, Cui XM, Huang H, et al. Radiofrequency ablation versus partial nephrectomy for treatment of renal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2015;31:649–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2015.09.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Thompson RH, Atwell T, Schmit G, et al. Comparison of partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation for cT1 renal masses. Eur Urol. 2015;67:252–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Liu N, Huang D, Cheng X, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for renal cell carcinoma vs. partial nephrectomy: comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes in both clear cell and non-clear cell of the most common subtype. Urologic Oncology: Seminars Original Investigations. 2017;35:530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.03.014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Complutense, University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Jerez Izquierdo Tamara, Gómez Rivas Juan, Vives Dilme Roser, Serrano Pascual Álvaro & Moreno Sierra Jesús

  2. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Zondervan Jeannelle Patricia

  3. ICUA (Instituto de Cirugía Urológica Avanzada), Madrid, Spain

    Rodriguez Moisés

  4. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Cechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation

    Enikeev Dmitry

Authors
  1. Jerez Izquierdo Tamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gómez Rivas Juan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zondervan Jeannelle Patricia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vives Dilme Roser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rodriguez Moisés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Enikeev Dmitry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Serrano Pascual Álvaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Moreno Sierra Jesús
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jerez Izquierdo Tamara.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Kidney Diseases

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tamara, J.I., Juan, G.R., Patricia, Z.J. et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Small Renal Masses: Where Do We Stand?. Curr Urol Rep 23, 99–111 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01093-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01093-x

Search

Navigation