Delayed Intervention of Small Renal Masses on Active Surveillance

Main Article Content

Mohit Gupta
Michael L. Blute, Jr.
Li-Ming Su
Paul L. Crispen

Keywords

active surveillance, delayed intervention, renal cell carcinoma, renal mass, small renal mass

Abstract

Although surgical excision is the standard of therapy for small renal masses (SRMs), there is a growing recognition of active surveillance as an option in select patients who are poor surgical candidates or who have shorter life expectancy. A number of patients on expectant management, however, subsequently advance to definitive therapy. In this study, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed a pooled analysis of active surveillance series to evaluate the rate and indications for definitive treatment after initiating a period of active surveillance. Fourteen clinical series (1245 patients; 1364 lesions) met our selection criteria. Mean lesion size at presentation was 2.30 ± 0.40 cm with a mean follow-up of 33.6 ± 16.9 months. Collectively, 34.0% of patients underwent delayed intervention, which ranged in individual series from 3.6% to 70.3%. Of patients undergoing delayed intervention, the average time on active surveillance prior to definitive treatment was 27.8 ± 10.6 months. A pooled analysis revealed that 41.0% of patients underwent therapy secondary to tumor growth rate and 51.9% secondary to patient or physician preference in the absence of clinical progression. Overall, 1.1% of all patients progressed to metastatic disease during the average follow-up period. Thus, active surveillance may be an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with SRMs. However, delayed treatment is pursued in a significant percentage of patients within 3 years. Prospective registries and clinical trials with standardized indications for delayed intervention are needed to establish true rates of disease progressions and recommendations for delayed intervention.

Abstract 2782 | PDF Downloads 1116 HTML Downloads 2754 XML Downloads 623

References

1. Volpe A, Panzarella T, Rendon RA, Haider MA, Kondylis FI, Jewett MA. The natural history of incidentally detected small renal masses. Cancer. 2004;100(4):738–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20025
2. Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG. Excise, ablate or observe: The small renal mass dilemma—A meta-analysis and review. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1227–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.047
3. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck BK. Rising incidence of small renal masses: A need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(18):1331–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj362
4. Frank I, Blute ML, Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H. 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(6):1889–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000158043.94525.d6
5. Kouba E, Smith A, McRackan D, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Watchful waiting for solid renal masses: Insight into the natural history and results of delayed intervention. J Urol. 2007;177(2):466–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.064
6. Hafez KS, Fergany AF, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: Impact of tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and TNM staging. J Urol. 1999;162(6):1930–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68071-8
7. Tracy CR, Raman JD, Donnally C, Trimmer CK, Cadeddu JA. Durable oncologic outcomes after radiofrequency ablation: Experience from treating 243 small renal masses over 7.5 years. Cancer. 2010;116(13):3135–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25002
8. Berger DA, Megwalu II, Vlahiotis A, Radwan MH, Serrano MF, Humphrey PA, et al. Impact of comorbidity on overall survival in patients surgically treated for renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2008;72(2):359–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.02.061
9. Lane BR, Abouassaly R, Gao T, Weight CJ, Hernandez AV, Larson BT, et al. Active treatment of localized renal tumors may not impact overall survival in patients aged 75 years or older. Cancer. 2010;116(13):3119–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25184
10. Crispen PL, Viterbo R, Boorjian SA, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. Natural history, growth kinetics, and outcomes of untreated clinically localized renal tumors under active surveillance. Cancer. 2009;115(13):2844–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24338
11. Rendon RA, Stanietzky N, Panzarella T, Robinette M, Klotz LH, Thurston W, et al. The natural history of small renal masses. J Urol. 2000;164(4):1143–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67129-7
12. Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: Meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol. 2006;175(2):425–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00148-5
13. Abouassaly R, Lane BR, Novick AC. Active surveillance of renal masses in elderly patients. J Urol. 2008;180(2):505–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.033
14. Bosniak MA, Birnbaum BA, Krinsky GA, Waisman J. Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: Further observations on growth. Radiology. 1995;197(3):589–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480724
15. Rosales JC, Haramis G, Moreno J, Badani K, Benson MC, McKiernan J, et al. Active surveillance for renal cortical neoplasms. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1698–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.024
16. Jewett MA, Mattar K, Basiuk J, Morash CG, Pautler SE, Siemens DR, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses: Progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60(1):39–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.030
17. Wehle MJ, Thiel DD, Petrou SP, Young PR, Frank I, Karsteadt N. Conservative management of incidental contrast-enhancing renal masses as safe alternative to invasive therapy. Urology. 2004;64(1):49–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.02.026
18. Abou Youssif T, Kassouf W, Steinberg J, Aprikian AG, Laplante MP, Tanguay S. Active surveillance for selected patients with renal masses: Updated results with long-term follow-up. Cancer. 2007;110(5):1010–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22871
19. Patel N, Cranston D, Akhtar MZ, George C, Jones A, Leiblich A, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses offers short-term oncological efficacy equivalent to radical and partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2012;110(9):1270–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11130.x
20. Brunocilla E, Borghesi M, Monti C, Schiavina R, Martorana G. Surveillance for small renal masses: Retrospective analysis of a cohort of 42 patients with long-term follow-up. Int Urol Nephrol. 2013;45(2):307–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0389-z
21. Siu W, Hafez KS, Johnston WK 3rd, Wolf JS Jr. Growth rates of renal cell carcinoma and oncocytoma under surveillance are similar. Urol Oncol. 2007;25(2):115–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.07.018
22. Matsuzaki M, Kawano Y, Morikawa H, Shiga Y, Murata H, Komatsu H. Conservative management of small renal tumors. Hinyokika Kiyo. 2007;53(4):207–11.
23. Smaldone MC, Kutikov A, Egleston BL, Canter DJ, Viterbo R, Chen DY, et al. Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Cancer. 2012;118(4):997–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26369
24. Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DY, Greenberg RE, Uzzo RG. Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol. 2007;177(3):849–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.073
25. Crispen PL, Viterbo R, Fox EB, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. Delayed intervention of sporadic renal masses undergoing active surveillance. Cancer. 2008;112(5):1051–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23268
26. Rais-Bahrami S, Guzzo TJ, Jarrett TW, Kavoussi LR, Allaf ME. Incidentally discovered renal masses: Oncological and perioperative outcomes in patients with delayed surgical intervention. BJU Int. 2009;103(10):1355–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08242.x
27. Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Ball MW, Gorin MA, Trock BJ, Chang P, 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(3):408–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.001
28. Patel HD, Riffon MF, Joice GA, Johnson MH, Chang P, Wagner AA, et al. A prospective, comparative study of quality of life among patients with small renal masses choosing active surveillance and primary intervention. J Urol. 2016;196(5):1356–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.073
29. Crispen PL, Wong YN, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. Predicting growth of solid renal masses under active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2008;26(5):555–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.03.010
30. Yates D, Rouprêt M. Small renal mass and low-risk prostate cancer: Any more for active surveillance? Eur Urol. 2015;60(1):45–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.04.002