International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 657–663 | Cite as

Outcomes of synchronous and metachronous bilateral small renal masses (< 4 cm): a population-based cohort study

  • Nissar Ahmed Sheikh
  • Mohammed Hassan Khan
  • Sanjay Pillai
  • Stephen Lang
  • Ghulam Nabi
Urology - Original Paper
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To report longitudinal outcomes of a population-based cohort of patients diagnosed with bilateral small renal masses from a period of over 11 years.

Patients and methods

Consecutive patients diagnosed with bilateral small renal masses (synchronous or metachronous) of a defined geographical area were recorded in a large database (TUCAN database) between January 2005 and December 2016. Patients had a unique identifier number and followed during this period using an agreed upon protocol. Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of bilateral small renal masses on active surveillance were analysed and compared to propensity score-matched sporadic unilateral small renal masses. Data were analysed for renal mass growth rate, rate of intervention and development of metastatic disease and patient survival.

Results

A total of 1060 patients were diagnosed with renal cancer, of which bilateral small renal masses accounted for 70 (6.6%) cases. Synchronous SRMs were observed in 63 patients, whereas metachronous lesions were found in seven patients during the study period. Metachronous lesion mean time to appearance was 62 ± 41 months (range 9–149 months). While most cases were sporadic, four were found to be hereditary. Growth rate of bilateral small renal masses did not differ from that of unilateral sporadic small renal masses. Similarly, there were no differences between the groups for rate of interventions and survival.

Conclusions

Progression, rate of metastases and survival for patients diagnosed with bilateral small renal masses are similar to those diagnosed with unilateral disease.

Keywords

Renal cancer Surgery Nephrectomy Active surveillance 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest declared by authors for the work presented in this study.

Ethical approval

All data collected in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional approval, and approval numbers were Caldicott/CSAppGN021211; Caldicott/IGTCAL2973.

Supplementary material

11255_2018_1817_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (73 kb)
Fig. 3, supplementary: Outcomes of small renal masses (bilateral vs. unilateral) on follow-up. (JPEG 72 kb)
11255_2018_1817_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (59 kb)
Fig. 4, supplementary: Multiple bilateral renal masses in a patient with VHL hereditary disease. Larger lesions were targeted using minimally invasive ablative technique. (JPEG 58 kb)
11255_2018_1817_MOESM3_ESM.png (305 kb)
Fig. 5, supplementary: Image-guided biopsy-confirmed oncocytoma as seen on MRI in an eighty-year-old lady with history of previous laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for contralateral small renal mass. (PNG 305 kb)
11255_2018_1817_MOESM4_ESM.tif (839 kb)
Fig. 6, supplementary: Metastasis-free survival in unilateral vs. bilateral (non-hereditary) small renal masses (TIFF 838 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hu XY et al (2017) Surgical strategy of bilateral synchronous sporadic renal cell carcinoma—experience of a Chinese University Hospital. World J Surg Oncol 15(1):53CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berczi C et al (2016) Bilateral renal cancers: oncological and functional outcomes. Int Urol Nephrol 48(10):1617–1622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wells GM et al (2009) Bilateral renal-cell carcinoma associated with an acquired VHL mutation and long-term trichloroethylene exposure. Clin Nephrol 71(6):708–713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs SC, Berg SI, Lawson RK (1980) Synchronous bilateral renal cell carcinoma: total surgical excision. Cancer 46(11):2341–2345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yu CC et al (1992) Simultaneous bilateral adrenal metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Surgical implications and review of the literature. Eur Urol 22(4):335–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tracy CR et al (2010) Durable oncologic outcomes after radiofrequency ablation: experience from treating 243 small renal masses over 7.5 years. Cancer 116(13):3135–3142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollingsworth JM et al (2006) Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(18):1331–1334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang B et al (2016) Bilateral synchronous sporadic renal cell carcinoma: retroperitoneoscopic strategies and intermediate outcomes of 60 patients. PLoS ONE 11(5):e0154578CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Qi N et al (2017) Clinicopathologic features and prognosis of sporadic bilateral renal cell carcinoma: a series of 148 cases. Clin Genitourin Cancer 15(5):618–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pahernik S et al (2007) Bilateral synchronous sporadic renal cell carcinoma: surgical management, oncological and functional outcomes. BJU Int 100(1):26–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobs BL et al (2009) Management of bilateral synchronous renal cell carcinoma in a single versus staged procedure. Can J Urol 16(1):4507–4511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiklund F et al (2009) Risk of bilateral renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(23):3737–3741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leonard M et al (2013) Impact of multiple deprivations on detection, progression and interventions in small renal masses (less than 4 cm) in a population based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 39(10):1157–1163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ganeswaran D et al (2014) Population-based linkage of health records to detect urological complications and hospitalisation following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies in men suspected of prostate cancer. World J Urol 32(2):309–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paterson C et al (2017) Predictors of growth kinetics and outcomes in small renal masses (SRM ≤ 4 cm in size): Tayside Active Surveillance Cohort (TASC) Study. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:1589–1597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haas NB, Nathanson KL (2014) Hereditary kidney cancer syndromes. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 21(1):81–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rednam SP et al (2017) Von Hippel–Lindau and hereditary pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma syndromes: clinical features, genetics, and surveillance recommendations in childhood. Clin Cancer Res 23(12):e68–e75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walther MM et al (1999) Clinical and genetic characterization of pheochromocytoma in von Hippel–Lindau families: comparison with sporadic pheochromocytoma gives insight into natural history of pheochromocytoma. J Urol 162(3 Pt 1):659–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blute ML et al (2003) The effect of bilaterality, pathological features and surgical outcome in nonhereditary renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 169(4):1276–1281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paterson C et al (2017) Predictors of growth kinetics and outcomes in small renal masses (SRM ≤ 4 cm in size): Tayside Active Surveillance Cohort (TASC) Study. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(8):1589–1597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klatte T et al (2007) Metachronous bilateral renal cell carcinoma: risk assessment, prognosis and relevance of the primary-free interval. J Urol 177(6):2081–2086 (discussion 2086-7) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kume H, Teramoto S, Kitamura T (2009) Metachronous bilateral renal cell carcinoma with an interval of more than 10 years. Int Urol Nephrol 41(4):843–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boorjian SA et al (2008) The impact of temporal presentation on clinical and pathological outcomes for patients with sporadic bilateral renal masses. Eur Urol 54(4):855–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Canter D et al (2011) Utility of the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system in objectifying treatment decision-making of the enhancing renal mass. Urology 78(5):1089–1094CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoshida K et al (2016) Comparison of diameter-axial-polar nephrometry score and RENAL nephrometry score for surgical outcomes following laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Int J Urol 23(2):148–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nissar Ahmed Sheikh
    • 1
  • Mohammed Hassan Khan
    • 1
  • Sanjay Pillai
    • 1
  • Stephen Lang
    • 1
  • Ghulam Nabi
    • 1
  1. 1.Academic Urology Unit, Cancer Research Division, Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Ninewells HospitalUniversity of DundeeDundeeScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations