Advertisement

Der Urologe

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Nachsorge beim Nierenzellkarzinom im nicht fernmetastasierten Stadium

  • B. Szabados
  • S. Foller
  • G. B. Schulz
  • M. Staehler
  • M.-O. Grimm
  • C. G. Stief
  • J. Casuscelli
CME
  • 14 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die postoperative Nachsorge nach kurativer operativer oder ablativer Therapie gehört zum Standard bei der Behandlung von Patienten mit nichtmetastasiertem Nierenzellkarzinom. Die Nachsorge dient der frühzeitigen Identifikation und Behandlung von Komplikationen und Rezidiven. Die hierfür erforderlichen Untersuchungen und deren Relevanz für den Verlauf der Erkrankung sind validiert. Die Nachsorge verbessert das Gesamtüberleben beim nichtmetastasierten Nierenzellkarzinom. Es gibt aber keinen Konsens über ein standardisiertes Nachsorgeprotokoll. Dies betrifft insbesondere die Frequenz der Untersuchungen und die Dauer der Nachsorge. Solange kein evidenzbasiertes Nachsorgekonzept entwickelt wird, muss ein individualisiertes, u. U. lebenslanges Nachsorgemanagement vom behandelnden Urologen durchgeführt werden, das auch die Bedürfnisse und Perspektiven des einzelnen Patienten einbezieht.

Schlüsselwörter

Nierenkrebs Postoperative Versorgung Komplikationen Rezidiv Leitlinien 

Follow-up of renal cell carcinoma in a nonmetastatic stage

Abstract

Postoperative follow-up care after curative surgery or ablative treatment is the standard of care in patients with nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma. The goal is to identify and treat postoperative complications and local recurrences early on. Follow-up investigations and their relevance are widely acknowledged and validated and patients undergoing follow-up seem to benefit from a longer survival in nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma. Hence there is no consensus on a standardized follow-up strategy. The most disputed question is around the frequency of the investigations and the duration of the follow-up. Without an evidence-based follow-up protocol, urologists should carry out an individualized, potentially lifelong follow-up regimen, which also includes the patients’ needs and perspectives.

Keywords

Kidney neoplasms Postoperative care Complications Relapse Guidelines 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

B. Szabados, S. Foller, G.B. Schulz, M. Staehler, M.-O. Grimm, C.G. Stief und J. Casuscelli geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Hsieh JJ, Purdue MP, Signoretti S et al (2017) Renal cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 3:17009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brookman-May S, May M, Shariat SF et al (2013) Features associated with recurrence beyond 5 years after nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: development and internal validation of a risk model (PRELANE score) to predict late recurrence based on a large multicenter database (CORONA/SATURN Project). Eur Urol 64:472–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA (2004) World Health Organization classification of tumours. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montie JE (1994) Follow-up after partial or total nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 21:589–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casuscelli J, Weinhold N, Gundem G et al (2017) Genomic landscape and evolution of metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. JCI Insight.  https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.92688 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Renshaw AA, Richie JP (1999) Subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Different onset and sites of metastatic disease. Am J Clin Pathol 111:539–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H et al (2004) Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: an examination of underlying histologic subtype and an analysis of associations with patient outcome. Am J Surg Pathol 28:435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siddiqui SA, Frank I, Cheville JC et al (2009) Postoperative surveillance for renal cell carcinoma: a multifactorial histological subtype specific protocol. BJU Int 104:778–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 98:1331–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beisland C, Guethbrandsdottir G, Reisaeter LA et al (2016) A prospective risk-stratified follow-up programme for radically treated renal cell carcinoma patients: evaluation after eight years of clinical use. World J Urol 34:1087–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levy DA, Slaton JW, Swanson DA et al (1998) Stage specific guidelines for surveillance after radical nephrectomy for local renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 159:1163–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ljungberg B, Alamdari FI, Rasmuson T et al (1999) Follow-up guidelines for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma based on the occurrence of metastases after radical nephrectomy. BJU Int 84:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klatte T, Lam JS, Shuch B et al (2008) Surveillance for renal cell carcinoma: why and how? When and how often? Urol Oncol 26:550–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stewart SB, Thompson RH, Psutka SP et al (2014) Evaluation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Urological Association renal cell carcinoma surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol 32:4059–4065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruno JJ 2nd, Snyder ME, Motzer RJ et al (2006) Renal cell carcinoma local recurrences: impact of surgical treatment and concomitant metastasis on survival. BJU Int 97:933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lam JS, Shvarts O, Leppert JT et al (2005) Renal cell carcinoma 2005: new frontiers in staging, prognostication and targeted molecular therapy. J Urol 173:1853–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim SP, Weight CJ, Leibovich BC et al (2011) Outcomes and clinicopathologic variables associated with late recurrence after nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma. Urology 78:1101–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sandock DS, Seftel AD, Resnick MI (1995) A new protocol for the followup of renal cell carcinoma based on pathological stage. J Urol 154:28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stephenson AJ, Chetner MP, Rourke K et al (2004) Guidelines for the surveillance of localized renal cell carcinoma based on the patterns of relapse after nephrectomy. J Urol 172:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hafez KS, Novick AC, Campbell SC (1997) Patterns of tumor recurrence and guidelines for followup after nephron sparing surgery for sporadic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 157:2067–2070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoshi S, Jokura H, Nakamura H et al (2002) Gamma-knife radiosurgery for brain metastasis of renal cell carcinoma: results in 42 patients. Int J Urol 9:618–625 (discussion 626; author reply 627)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shuch B, La Rochelle JC, Klatte T et al (2008) Brain metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: presentation, recurrence, and survival. Cancer 113:1641–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mcdonald JS, Mcdonald RJ, Williamson EE et al (2017) Is intravenous administration of Iodixanol associated with increased risk of acute kidney injury, dialysis, or mortality? A propensity score-adjusted study. Radiology 285:414–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seaman E, Goluboff ET, Ross S et al (1996) Association of radionuclide bone scan and serum alkaline phosphatase in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Urology 48:692–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Platzek I, Zastrow S, Deppe PE et al (2010) Whole-body MRI in follow-up of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Acta Radiol 51:581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin YK, Gettle L, Raman JD (2013) Significant variability in 10-year cumulative radiation exposure incurred on different surveillance regimens after surgery for pT1 renal cancers: yet another reason to standardize protocols? BJU Int 111:891–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fuccio C, Ceci F, Castellucci P et al (2014) Restaging clear cell renal carcinoma with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 39:e320–e324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Cindolo L, Chiodini P, Gallo C et al (2008) Validation by calibration of the UCLA integrated staging system prognostic model for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. Cancer 113:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Chun FK et al (2007) Multi-institutional validation of a new renal cancer-specific survival nomogram. J Clin Oncol 25:1316–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ et al (2001) A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166:63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al (2003) Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer 97:1663–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT et al (2013) Follow-up for clinically localized renal neoplasms: AUA guideline. J Urol 190:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Szabados
    • 1
  • S. Foller
    • 2
  • G. B. Schulz
    • 3
  • M. Staehler
    • 3
  • M.-O. Grimm
    • 2
  • C. G. Stief
    • 3
  • J. Casuscelli
    • 3
  1. 1.Barts Cancer InstituteQueen Mary University of LondonLondonGroßbritannien
  2. 2.Klinik für UrologieUniversitätsklinikum JenaJenaDeutschland
  3. 3.Urologische Klinik und PoliklinikKlinikum der Universität München, Campus GroßhadernMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations