Impact of routine imaging in the diagnosis of recurrence for patients with localized and locally advanced renal tumor treated with nephrectomy
- 62 Downloads
Modalities of surveillance to detect recurrence after nephrectomy for localized or locally advanced renal tumor are not standardized. The aim was to assess the impact of surveillance scheme on oncological outcomes.
Patients treated for localized or locally advanced renal tumor with total or partial nephrectomy between 2006 and 2010 in an academic institution were included retrospectively. According to the University of California Los Angeles Integrated Staging System (UISS) protocol, follow-up was considered adequate or not. Symptoms, location and number of lesions at recurrence diagnosis were collected. Recurrence-free, cancer-specific and overall survivals were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression models were calculated to identify prognostic factors.
A total of 267 patients were included. Median follow-up was 72 months. Recurrence rate was 23.2% (62/267 patients). Recurrences were local (16%), single metastatic (23%), oligo-metastatic (15%) or multi-metastatic (46%). 72.6% of the recurrences occurred within the 3 years after surgery. No recurrence was diagnosed by chest X-ray or abdominal ultrasound. One hundred and twenty-one patients had inadequate follow-up. They had similar recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival and overall survival as patients with adequate follow-up. In multivariable analysis, the presence of multi-metastatic lesions was an independent prognostic factor of worse cancer-specific mortality after recurrence diagnosis (HR = 10.15, 95% CI: 2.29–44.82, p = 0.002).
Role of chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound for the detection of recurrences is limited. Rigorous follow-up according to the UISS protocol does not improve oncological outcomes. Follow-up schedules with less frequent imaging should be discussed.
KeywordsRenal tumor Follow-up Recurrence Survival Tomography
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.Lam JS, Shvarts O, Leppert JT et al (2005) Postoperative surveillance protocol for patients with localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma based on a validated prognostic nomogram and risk group stratification system. J Urol 174:466–472. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000165572.38887.da(discussion 472; quiz 801) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Wieder J et al (2002) Risk group assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to predict the natural history of patients with surgically resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 20:4559–4566. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.05.111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Antonelli A, Furlan M, Sodano M et al (2016) Features, risk factors and clinical outcome of “very late” recurrences after surgery for localized renal carcinoma: a retrospective evaluation of a cohort with a minimum of 10 years of follow up. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 23:36–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar