Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Management of Small Renal Masses

  • 507 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

CCI:

Charlson comorbidity index

CT:

Computed tomography

FNA:

Fine needle aspiration

RCC:

Renal cell carcinoma

SRM:

Small renal mass

References

  1. Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer. 2008;113(1):78–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Patard JJ, Rodriguez A, Rioux-Leclercq N, Guille F, Lobel B. Prognostic significance of the mode of detection in renal tumours. BJU Int. 2002;90(4):358–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumour stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol. 2002;168(6):2395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB, Figlin R, de Kernion JB, Belldegrun A. Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumours. J Urol. 2000;163(2):426–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell ET. A classification of renal tumours with observations on the frequency of the various types. J Urol. 1938;39:238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bosniak MA. Observation of small incidentally detected renal masses. Semin Urol Oncol. 1995;13(4):267–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Volpe A, Jewett MA. The role of surveillance for small renal masses. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007;4(1):2–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. [Research Support, N.I.H, Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t. Review].

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;16

    Google Scholar 

  13. Organ M, Jewett M, Basiuk J, Morash C, Pautler S, Siemens DR, et al. Growth kinetics of small renal masses: a prospective analysis from the Renal Cell Carcinoma Consortium of Canada. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(1–2):24–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Danzig MR, Chang P, Wagner AA, Pierorazio PM, Allaf ME, McKiernan JM. Active surveillance is superior to radical nephrectomy and equivalent to partial nephrectomy in preserving renal function among patients with small renal masses; results from the DISSRM Registry. J Urol 2015;194(4):903–9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lamb GW, Bromwich EJ, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mues AC, Haramis G, Badani K, Gupta M, Benson MC, McKiernan JM, et al. Active surveillance for larger (cT1bN0M0 and cT2N0M0) renal cortical neoplasms. Urology. 2010;76(3):620–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mehrazin R, Smaldone MC, Egleston B, Tomaszewski JJ, Concodora CW, Ito TK, et al. Is anatomic complexity associated with renal tumour growth kinetics under active surveillance? Urol Oncol. 2015;33(4):167 e7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):913–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, Matveev V, Bono A, Borkowski A, et al. A prospective randomized EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2010;59(4):543–52.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, Campbell S, Van Poppel H. Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):372–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Patard JJ, Shvarts O, Lam JS, Pantuck AJ, Kim HL, Ficarra V, et al. Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumours based on an international multicenter experience. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2181–5; quiz 435.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Liguori G, Trombetta C, Pomara G, Amodeo A, Bucci S, Garaffa G, et al. Major invasive surgery for urologic cancer in octogenarians with comorbid medical conditions. Eur Urol. 2007;51(6):1600–4; discussion 5

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sun M, Thuret R, Abdollah F, Lughezzani G, Schmitges J, Tian Z, et al. Age-adjusted incidence, mortality, and survival rates of stage-specific renal cell carcinoma in North America: a trend analysis. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):135–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hellsten S, Johnsen J, Berge T, Linell F. Clinically unrecognized renal cell carcinoma. Diagnostic and pathological aspects. Eur Urol. 1990;18(Suppl)2:2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck BK. Five-year survival after surgical treatment for kidney cancer: a population-based competing risk analysis. Cancer. 2007;109(9):1763–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Arrontes DS, Acenero MJ, Gonzales JI, Munoz MM, Andres PP. Survival analysis of clear cell renal carcinoma according to the Charlson comorbidity index. J Urol. 2008;179:857–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lane BR, Abouassaly R, Gao T, Weight CJ, Hernandez AV, Larson BT, et al. Active treatment of localized renal tumours may not impact overall survival in patients aged 75 years or older. Cancer. 2010;116(13):3119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zini L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Capitanio U, Duclos A, Jolivet-Tremblay M, et al. A population-based comparison of survival after nephrectomy vs nonsurgical management for small renal masses. BJU Int. 2009;103(7):899–904; discussion.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sun M, Bianchi M, Trinh QD, Hansen J, Abdollah F, Hanna N, et al. Comparison of partial vs radical nephrectomy with regard to other-cause mortality in T1 renal cell carcinoma among patients aged ≥75 years with multiple comorbidities. BJU Int 2013;111(1):67-73.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sun M, Becker A, Tian Z, Roghmann F, Abdollah F, Larouche A, et al. Management of localized kidney cancer: calculating cancer-specific mortality and competing risks of death for surgery and nonsurgical management. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):235–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kutikov A, Egleston BL, Wong YN, Uzzo RG. Evaluating overall survival and competing risks of death in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma using a comprehensive nomogram. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(2):311–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lughezzani G, Sun M, Budaus L, Thuret R, Perrotte P, Karakiewicz PI. Population-based external validation of a competing-risks nomogram for patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):e299–300; author reply e1.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Volpe A, Cadeddu JA, Cestari A, Gill IS, Jewett MA, Joniau S, et al. Contemporary management of small renal masses. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):501–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kunkle DA, Chen DY, Greenberg RE, Viterbo R, Uzzo RG. Metastatic progression of enhancing renal masses under active surveillance is associated with rapid interval growth of the primary tumour. J Urol. 2008(abstract 1089).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, Hoffman F, Stewart F, Norrie J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):660-73

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wunderlich H, Hindermann W, Al Mustafa AM, Reichelt O, Junker K, Schubert J. The accuracy of 250 fine needle biopsies of renal tumours. J Urol. 2005;174(1):44–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Volpe A, Finelli A, Gill IS, Jewett MA, Martignoni G, Polascik TJ, et al. Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):491–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Volpe A, Jewett MA. Current role, techniques and outcomes of percutaneous biopsy of renal tumours. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009;9(6):773–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, Hofmann F, Stewart F, Norrie J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol. 2015;69(4):660–73.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 67(5):913–24.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam T, et al. Systematic review methodology for the European Association of Urology guidelines for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):913–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Parks GE, Perkins LA, Zagoria RJ, Garvin AJ, Sirintrapun SJ, Geisinger KR. Benefits of a combined approach to sampling of renal neoplasms as demonstrated in a series of 351 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(6):827–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sahni VA, Ly A, Silverman SG. Usefulness of percutaneous biopsy in diagnosing benign renal masses that mimic malignancy. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(1):91–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tsivian M, Mouraviev V, Albala DM, Caso JR, Robertson CN, Madden JF, et al. Clinical predictors of renal mass pathological features. BJU Int. 2011;107(5):735–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. Solid renal tumours: an analysis of pathological features related to tumour size. J Urol. 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2217–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Choudhary S, Rajesh A, Mayer NJ, Mulcahy KA, Haroon A. Renal oncocytoma: CT features cannot reliably distinguish oncocytoma from other renal neoplasms. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(5):517–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rosenkrantz AB, Hindman N, Fitzgerald EF, Niver BE, Melamed J, Babb JS. MRI features of renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(6):W421–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, Cho KS. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology. 2004;230(3):677–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Remzi M, Katzenbeisser D, Waldert M, Klingler HC, Susani M, Memarsadeghi M, et al. Renal tumour size measured radiologically before surgery is an unreliable variable for predicting histopathological features: benign tumours are not necessarily small. BJU Int. 2007;99(5):1002–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, University of Eastern Piedmont, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, Corso Mazzini, 18, 28100, Novara, Italy

    Alessandro Volpe M.D.

Authors
  1. Alessandro Volpe M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Volpe M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Kamran Ahmed

  2. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Nicholas Raison

  3. Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom

    Ben Challacombe

  4. OLV Hospital, ORSI Academy, Aalst, Belgium

    Alexandre Mottrie

  5. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Prokar Dasgupta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Volpe, A. (2018). The Role of Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses. In: Ahmed, K., Raison, N., Challacombe, B., Mottrie, A., Dasgupta, P. (eds) The Management of Small Renal Masses. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65657-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65657-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65656-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65657-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation