Active surveillance of enhancing renal tumors
https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2007-3-4-17-21
Abstract
Introduction: Prompt surgical excision remains the standard of care for clinically localized enhancing renal tumors, for this reason the natural history of untreated renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has not been established. In order to increase our understanding of the natural history of RCC we reviewed our experience with the active surveillance of enhancing renal tumors.
Methods: We reviewed our renal cancer database for enhancing renal masses that were radiographically observed for a period of at least 12 months. Variables examined included patient age, gender, lesion size on presentation, radiographic tumor characteristics, duration of active surveillance, linear tumor growth rate, incidence, type of surgical intervention, and surgical pathology.
Results: 109 patients with 124 sporadic enhancing renal tumors were identified undergoing a period of active surveillance of at least 12 months. Mean patient age was 69.8 years (median 73, range 35—87). Mean duration of active surveillance was 33.4 months (median 26, range 12—156). Multifocal disease was present in 9% (10/109) patients on presentation. Tumor size on presentation was a mean of 2.61 cm (median 2.0, range 0.4—12.0). Overall mean tumor growth rate was 0.28 cm/yr (median 0.21, range -1.4—2.47). Observed linear growth rates were independent of patient age, gender, tumor size on presentation, and radiographic characteristics (solid versus cystic), p > 0.05. Of the patients initiating a period of active surveillance 36% (39/109) eventually underwent definitive therapy. Extirpative and ablative therapies were used in 72% (28/39) and 28% (11/39) of the patients undergoing surgical intervention, respectively. Malignant pathology was present in 90% (35/39) of the patients undergoing treatment. Of the malignant tumors evaluated, 68% were clear cell RCC.
Conclusions: Our current series reveals that the majority of small enhancing renal tumors show a slow interval growth and they are malignant. The investigation and development of clinical and radiographic predictors of future tumor growth would be of great benefit in order to avoid unnecessary intervention in selected patients.
About the Authors
P. L. Crispen
Oncology Fox Chase Cancer Center
United States
Department of Urologic
United States
Department of Urologic
R. E. Greenberg
Oncology Fox Chase Cancer Center
United States
Department of Urologic
United States
Department of Urologic
D. Y. T. Chen
Oncology Fox Chase Cancer Center
United States
Department of Urologic
United States
Department of Urologic
R. G. Uzzo
Oncology Fox Chase Cancer Center
United States
Department of Urologic
United States
Department of Urologic
References
1. Chow W.H., Devesa S.S., Warren J.L., Fraumeni J.F. Jr. Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA 1999;281(17):1628—31.
2. Hollingsworth J.M., Miller D.C., Daignault S., Hollenbeck B.K. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98(18):1331—4.
3. Clark J.I., Atkins M.B., Urba W.J. et al. Adjuvant high-dose bolus interleukin-2 for patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma: a cytokine working group randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(16):3133—40.
4. Negrier S., Escudier B., Lasset C. et al. Recombinant human interleukin-2, recombinant human interferon alfa-2a, or both in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie. N Engl J Med 1998;338(18):1272—8.
5. Chawla S.N., Crispen P.L., Hanlon A.L. et al. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 2006;175(2):425—31.
6. Wehle M.J., Thiel D.D., Petrou S.P. et al. Conservative management of incidental contrast-enhancing renal masses as safe alternative to invasive therapy. Urology 2004;64(1):49—52.
7. Sowery R.D., Siemens D.R. Growth characteristics of renal cortical tumors in patients managed by watchful waiting. Can J Urol 2004;11(5):2407—10.
8. Lamb G.W., Bromwich E.J., Vasey P., Aitchison M. Management of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for nephrectomy — natural history, complications, and outcome. Urology 2004;64(5):909—13.
9. Kassouf W., Aprikian A.G., Laplante M., Tanguay S. Natural history of renal masses followed expectantly. J Urol 2004;171(1):111—3; discussion 3.
10. Kunkle D.A., Crispen P.L., Chen D.Y. et al. Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol 2007;177(3):849—54.
11. Kouba E., Smith A., McRackan D. et al. Watchful waiting for solid renal masses: insight into the natural history and results of delayed intervention. J Urol 2007;177(2):466-70; discussion 70.
12. Bosniak M.A. Observation of small incidentally detected renal masses. Semin Urol Oncol 1995;13(4):267—72.
13. Bosniak M.A., Birnbaum B.A., Krinsky G.A., Waisman J. Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations on growth. Radiology 1995;197(3):589—97.
Review
For citations:
Crispen P.L., Greenberg R.E., Chen D.Y., Uzzo R.G. Active surveillance of enhancing renal tumors. Cancer Urology. 2007;3(4):17-21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2007-3-4-17-21
Views:
316
Email this article 