Advertisement

Peut-on surveiller les petites tumeurs rénales?

  • Alessandro Volpe
  • Maxime Crepel
  • Michael A. S. Jewett
Chapter
  • 338 Downloads
Part of the Oncologie pratique book series (ONCOLPRAT)

Abstrait

Les tumeurs rénales malignes correspondent à environ 2% de ľincidence et de la mortalité par cancer aux États-Unis, avec 38 890 nouveaux cas et 12 840 décès en 2006 (1). Depuis 1950, il y a eu une augmentation de 126% de ľincidence des carcinomes à cellules rénales (CCR) aux États-Unis (2). Cette tendance à ľaugmentation est retrouvée partout dans le monde. Elle est en partie due à la diffusion de nouvelles techniques ďimagerie abdominale non invasives, comme ľéchographie (US), le scanner (CT) et ľimagerie par résonance magnétique (IRM) (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13); le nombre de ces examens a ďailleurs constamment augmenté durant les deux dernières décennies et a quasiment doublé entre 1986 et 1994 (5).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al. (2006) Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 56: 106–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Belldegrun AS (2001) The changing natural history of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166: 1611–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wunderlich H, Schumann S, Jantitzky V et al. (1998) Increase of renal cell carcinoma incidence in central Europe. Eur Urol 33: 538–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rofsky NM, Bosniak MA (1997) MR imaging in the evaluation of small (< or=3.0 cm) renal masses. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 5: 67–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL et al. (1999) Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. Jama 281: 1628–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hock LM, Lynch J, Balaji KC (2002) Increasing incidence of all stages of kidney cancer in the last 2 decades in the United States: an analysis of surveillance, epidemiology and end results program data. J Urol 167: 57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mathew A, Devesa SS, Fraumeni JF et al. (2002) Global increases in kidney cancer incidence, 1973–1992. Eur J Cancer Prev 11: 171–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lightfoot N, Conlon M, Kreiger N et al. (2000) Impact of noninvasive, imaging on increased incidental detection of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 37: 521–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu S, Semenciw R, Morrison H et al. (1997) Kidney cancer in Canada: the rapidly increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma in adults and seniors. Can J Public Health 88: 99–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siemer S, Uder M, Humke U et al. (2000) (Value of ultrasound in early diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma). Urologe A 39: 149–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wills JS (1997) The diagnosis and management of small (< or=3 cm) renal neoplasms: a commentary. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 18: 75–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porena M, Vespasiani G, Rossi P et al. (1992) Incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma: role of ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound 20: 395–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB et al. (2000) Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumors. J Urol 163: 426–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skinner DG, Colvin RB, Vermillion CD et al. (1971) Diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma. A clinical and pathologic study of 309 cases. Cancer 28: 165–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Konnak JW, Grossman HB (1985) Renal cell carcinoma as an incidental finding. J Urol 134: 1094–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shintaku I, Suzuki Y, Uchi K et al. (2000) Characteristics of incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma by ultrasonography at health check-up. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 91: 43–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russo P (2001) Localized renal cell carcinoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2: 447–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luciani LG, Cestari R, Tallarigo C (2000) Incidental renal cell carcinoma-age and stage characterization and clinical implications: study of 1092 patients (1982–1997). Urology 56: 58–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Homma Y, Kawabe K, Kitamura T et al. (1995) Increased incidental detection and reduced mortality in renal cancer-recent retrospective analysis at eight institutions. Int J Urol 2: 77–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bos SD, Mellema CT, Mensink HJ (2000) Increase in incidental renal cell carcinoma in the northern part of the Netherlands. Eur Urol 37: 267–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jayson M, Sanders H (1998) Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology 51: 203–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C et al. (1995) Prognostic significance of incidental renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 27: 319–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL et al. (2000) Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs elective nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clinic Proc 75: 1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee CT, Katz J, Shi W et al. (2000) Surgical management of renal tumors 4 cm or less in a contemporary cohort. J Urol 163: 730–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Licht MR, Novick AC and Goormastic M (1994) Nephron sparing surgery in incidental versus suspected renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 152: 39–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patard JJ, Rodriguez A, Rioux-Leclercq N et al. (2002) Prognostic significance of the mode of detection in renal tumours. BJU Int 90: 358–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Russo P (2000) Renal cell carcinoma: presentation, staging, and surgical treatment. Semin Oncol 27: 160–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thompson IM, Peek M (1988) Improvement in survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma-the role of the serendipitously detected tumor. J Urol 140: 487–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marshall FF, Stewart AK, Menck HR (1997) The National Cancer Data Base: report on kidney cancers. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Cancer 80: 2167–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aso Y, Homma Y (1992) A survey on incidental renal cell carcinoma in Japan. J Urol 147: 340–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Katz DL, Zheng T, Holford TR et al. (1994) Time trends in the incidence of renal carcinoma: analysis of Connecticut Tumor Registry data, 1935–1989. Int J Cancer 58: 57–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Finelli A et al. (2006) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: 3-year followup. J Urol 175: 459–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Link RE, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME et al. (2005) Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass. J Urol 173: 1690–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al. (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170: 2217–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kessler O, Mukamel E, Hadar H et al. (1994) Effect of improved diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma on the course of the disease. J Surg Oncol 57: 201–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sweeney JP, Thornhill JA, Graiger R et al. (1996) Incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma: pathological features, survival trends and implications for treatment. Br J Urol 78: 351–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bell ET (1938) A classification of renal tumors with observations on the frequency of the various types. J Urol 39: 238Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bell ET (1950) Renal disease. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, p 435Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bosniak MA (1995) Observation of small incidentally detected renal masses. Semin Urol Oncol 13: 267–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bosniak MA, Birnbaum BA, Krinsky GA et al. (1995) Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations on growth. Radiology 197: 589–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bosniak MA, Krinsky GA, Waisman J (1996) Management of small incidental renal parenchymal tumors by watchful-waiting in selected patients based on observations of tumor growth rates vol. J Urol suppl 155: 584A, Abstract 1092Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Volpe A, Panzarella T, Rendon RA et al. (2004) The natural history of incidentally detected small renal masses. Cancer 100: 738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kassouf W, Aprikian AG, Laplante M et al. (2004) Natural history of renal masses followed expectantly. J Urol 171: 111–3; discussion 113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kato M, Suzuki T, Suzuki Y et al. (2004) Natural history of small renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of growth rate, histological grade, cell proliferation and apoptosis. J Urol 172: 863–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wehle MJ, Thiel DD, Petrou SP et al. (2004) Conservative management of incidental contrast-enhancing renal masses as safe alternative to invasive therapy. Urology 64: 49–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sowery RD, Siemens DR (2004) Growth characteristics of renal cortical tumors in patients managed by watchful waiting. Can J Urol 11: 2407–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McRackan D, Kouba E, Wallen EM et al. (2006) Expectant management of small renal masses: does a delay in therapy pose a clinical or pathological risk to the patient?. J Urol 175: 237, Abstract 732Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DY et al. (2007) Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol 177: 849–53; discussion 853-4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    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: 425–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lamb GW, Bromwich EJ, Vasey P et al. (2004) Management of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for nephrectomy-natural history, complications, and outcome. Urology 64: 909–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Frank I, Blute ML, Leibovich BC et al. (2005) 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 173: 1889–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mejean A, Vogt B, Quazza JE et al. (1999) Mortality and morbidity after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma using a transperitoneal anterior subcostal incision. Eur Urol 36: 298–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fontaine E, Chretien Y (2001) Systematic conservative surgery for kidney cancer smaller than 4 cm: multicenter study. Prog Urol 11: 621–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Uzzo RG, Novick AC (2001) Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 166: 6–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stephenson AJ, Hakimi AA, Snyder ME et al. (2004) Complications of radical and partial nephrectomy in a large contemporary cohort. J Urol 171: 130–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Karakiewicz PI, Lewinshtein D, Perrotte P et al. (2006) The effect of competing mortality on the risk of cancer-specific survival in kidney cancer. J Urol 175: 240, Abstract 739Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S et al. (2006) Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1331–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hajdu SI, Berg JW, Foote FWJr (1970) Clinically unrecognized, silent renal-cell carcinoma in elderly cancer patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 18: 443–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hellsten S, Johnsen J, Berge T et al. (1990) Clinically unrecognized renal cell carcinoma. Diagnostic and pathological aspects. Eur Urol 18 Suppl 2: 2–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al. (2002) An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol 168: 2395–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Chao D et al. (2001) Reevaluation of the 1997 TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: T1 and T2 cutoff point at 4.5 rather than 7 cm. better correlates with clinical outcome. J Urol 166: 54–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Walther MM, Choyke PL, Glenn G et al. (1999) Renal cancer in families with hereditary renal cancer: prospective analysis of a tumor size threshold for renal parenchymal sparing surgery. J Urol 161: 1475–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bosniak MA (1991) The small (less than or equal to 3.0 cm) renal parenchymal tumor: detection, diagnosis, and controversies. Radiology 179: 307–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Viterbo R, Crispen PL, Greenberg RE et al. (2006) Delayed management of high grade renal tumors. J Urol 175: 350, Abstract 1089Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wheatley JM, Rosenfield NS, Heller G et al. (1995) Validation of a technique of computer-aided tumor volume determination. J Surg Res 59: 621–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tann M, Sopov V, Croitoru S et al. (2001) How accurate is helical CT volumetric assessment in renal tumors? Eur Radiol 11: 1435–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nawaratne S, Fabiny R, Brien JE et al. (1997) Accuracy of volume measurement using helical CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21: 481–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Coulam CH, Bouley DM, Sommer FG (2002) Measurement of renal volumes with contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 15: 174–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schlesinger AE, Hernandez RJ, Zerin JM et al. (1991) Interobserver and intraobserver variations in sonographic renal length measurements in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 156: 1029–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hederstrom E, Forsberg L (1985) Accuracy of ultrasonography compared with urography in detection of intrarenal dilatation in children. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 26: 201–7Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Neuzillet Y, Lechevallier E, Andre M et al. (2004) Accuracy and clinical role of fine needle percutaneous biopsy with computerized tomography guidance of small (less than 4.0 cm) renal masses. J Urol 171: 1802–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wood BJ, Khan MA, McGovern F et al. (1999) Imaging guided biopsy of renal masses: indications, accuracy and impact on clinical management. J Urol 161: 1470–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Vasudevan A, Davies RJ, Shannon BA et al. (2006) Incidental renal tumours: the frequency of benign lesions and the role of preoperative core biopsy. BJU Int 97: 946–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Maturen KE, Nghiem HV, Caoili EM et al. (2007) Renal mass core biopsy: accuracy and impact on clinical management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188: 563–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Beland MD, Mayo-Smith WW, Dupuy DE et al. (2007) Diagnostic yield of 58 consecutive imaging-guided biopsies of solid renal masses: should we biopsy all that are indeterminate? AJR Am J Roentgenol 188: 792–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Shah RB, Bakshi N, Hafez KS et al. (2005) Image-guided biopsy in the evaluation of renal mass lesions in contemporary urological practice: indications, adequacy, clinical impact, and limitations of the pathological diagnosis. Hum Pathol 36: 1309–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Richter F, Kasabian NG, Irwin RJ et al. (2000) Accuracy of diagnosis by guided biopsy of renal mass lesions classified indeterminate by imaging studies. Urology 55: 348–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France, Paris 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Volpe
    • 1
  • Maxime Crepel
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael A. S. Jewett
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Urology San Luigi Hospital OrbassanoUniversity of TurinItaly
  2. 2.Service ďurologieCHU PontchaillouRennes cedex 9France
  3. 3.Université de RennesRennesFrance
  4. 4.Division of Urology Department of Surgical Oncology Princess Margaret Hospital and the University Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations