1
|
Masoumi-Ravandi K, Mason RJ, Rendon RA. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs. laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy A single-site, two-surgeon, retrospective cohort study. Can Urol Assoc J 2024; 18:245-250. [PMID: 38587976 PMCID: PMC11326722 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.8585] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/10/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In 2019, our center attempted to transition all partial nephrectomies (PNs) to robotic-assisted laparoscopic PN (RALPN). The purpose of this study was to compare RALPN outcomes to laparoscopic PN (LPN) and open PN (OPN) at our institution, as there is limited literature from Canadian centers. METHODS In this single-center, two-surgeon, retrospective cohort study, we compared RALPN outcomes during the early phase of our robotics program to OPN and LPN performed just before the introduction of RALPN. RESULTS A total of 106 patients underwent OPN, 83 LPN, and 82 RALPN during the study period. Median RALPN REN AL score was 7 vs. 6 for LPN (p<0.05) and 8 for OPN (p=0.10). Median RALPN length of stay (LOS) was two days vs. three and four days for LPN and OPN (p<0.05), respectively. OPN median procedure time was 104 minutes vs. 94 and 82 minutes for LPN and RALPN (p<0.05), respectively. Median OPN operating room (OR) time was 160 minutes vs. 150 and 146 minutes for LPN and RALPN (p<0.05), respectively. There were no significant differences in intraoperative (p=0.92) or postoperative complication rates (p=0.47). RALPN warm ischemia time (WIT) was 17 minutes vs. 14.5 and 15 minutes for OPN and LPN (p<0.05), respectively. Median RALPN estimated blood loss (EBL) was 165 ml vs. 250 ml for OPN (p<0.05) and 125 ml for LPN (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS Although patients who underwent RALPN had longer WIT, they had similar rates of complications, required less total OR time, and had shorter procedure times and LOS compared with OPN and LPN despite similar REN AL scores compared to OPN and greater scores than LPN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ross J Mason
- Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Ricardo A Rendon
- Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bak R, Jensen JB, Pelant T, Haase RN, Nielsen TK. Active Surveillance of Small Renal Masses in a Large Danish Cohort: Assessing Proficiency in Patient Selection. J Kidney Cancer VHL 2024; 11:54-62. [PMID: 38567125 PMCID: PMC10985781 DOI: 10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i1.318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2023] [Accepted: 03/20/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Small renal masses (SRMs) are often benign or early-stage cancers with low metastatic potential. The risk of overtreating SRMs is a particular concern in elderly or comorbid patients, for whom the risks associated with active surveillance (AS) are lower than the risks of surgical management. The aim is to systematically analyse a large cohort of AS patients to provide valuable insights into patient selection and outcomes concerning delayed intervention (DI) and AS termination. We retrospectively analysed data from 563 AS patients across three institutions from 2012 to 2023. Patients were classified into three groups: those currently in AS (n=283), those who underwent DI (n=75), and those who terminated AS (n=205). DI patients were younger, and had larger initial tumour size and higher growth rates (GRs) than AS patients. A significant number of patients terminated their AS, mainly due to comorbidities and death from non-kidney cancer causes, suggesting unsuitability for initial AS enrolment. AS appears to be a safe initial management strategy for SRMs, with an overall low GR and only one patient developing metastasis. The patient selection for AS appears inconsistent, highlighting the need for improved criteria to identify AS candidates, especially considering comorbidities and the possibility of subsequent active treatment in the event of progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rasmine Bak
- Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Jørgen Bjerregaard Jensen
- Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Tau Pelant
- Department of Urology, Regional Hospital Gødstrup, Gødstrup, Denmark
| | | | - Tommy Kjærgaard Nielsen
- Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Urology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lemire F, Fergusson DA, Knoll G, Morash C, Lavallée LT, Mallick R, Finelli A, Kapoor A, Pouliot F, Izawa J, Rendon R, Cagiannos I, Breau RH. Estimated glomerular filtration rate from the renal hypothermia trial: clinical implications. BJU Int 2023; 132:452-460. [PMID: 37409827 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess if estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) can replace measured GFR (mGFR) in partial nephrectomy (PN) trials, using data from a randomised clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a post hoc analysis of the renal hypothermia trial. Patients underwent mGFR with diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) plasma clearance preoperatively and 1 year after PN. The eGFR was calculated using the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine equations incorporating age and sex, with and without race: 2009 eGFRcr(ASR) and 2009 eGFRcr(AS), and the 2021 equation that only incorporates age and sex: 2021 eGFRcr(AS). Performance was evaluated by determining the median bias, precision (interquartile range [IQR] of median bias), and accuracy (percentage of eGFR within 30% of mGFR). RESULTS Overall, 183 patients were included. Pre- and postoperative median bias and precision were similar between the 2009 eGFRcr(ASR) (-0.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 , 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.2 to 1.7, IQR 18.8; and -2.9, 95% CI -5.1 to -1.5, IQR 15, respectively) and 2009 eGFRcr(AS) (-0.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 , 95% CI -2.4 to 1.5, IQR 18.8; and -3.0, 95% CI -5.7 to -1.7, IQR 15.0, respectively). Bias and precision were worse for the 2021 eGFRcr(AS) (-8.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 , 95% CI -10.9 to -6.3, IQR 24.7; and -12.0, 95% CI -15.8 to -8.9, IQR 23.5, respectively). Similarly, pre- and postoperative accuracy was >90% for the 2009 eGFRcr(ASR) and 2009 eGFRcr(AS) equations. Accuracy was 78.6% preoperatively and 66.5% postoperatively for 2021 eGFRcr(AS). CONCLUSION The 2009 eGFRcr(AS) can accurately estimate GFR in PN trials and could be used instead of mGFR to reduce cost and patient burden.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francis Lemire
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Dean A Fergusson
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Greg Knoll
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Christopher Morash
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Luke T Lavallée
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Ranjeeta Mallick
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Anil Kapoor
- Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Jonathan Izawa
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Ricardo Rendon
- Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Ilias Cagiannos
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Rodney H Breau
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lomoschitz FM, Stummer H. Applied Change Management in Interventional Radiology—Implementation of Percutaneous Thermal Ablation as an Additional Therapeutic Method for Small Renal Masses. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:diagnostics12061301. [PMID: 35741111 PMCID: PMC9222117 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12061301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2022] [Revised: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Interventional radiology (IR) has the potential to offer minimally invasive therapy. With this potential, new and arising IR methods may sometimes be in competition with established therapies. To introduce new methods, transformational processes are necessary. In organizations, structured methods of change management, such as the eight-step process of Kotter—(1) Establishing a sense of urgency, (2) Creating the guiding coalition, (3) Developing a vision and strategy, (4) Communicating the change vision, (5) Empowering employees for broad-based action, (6) Generating short-term wins, (7) Consolidating gains and producing more change, and (8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture—are applied based on considerable evidence. In this article, the application of Kotter’s model in the clinical context is shown through the structured transformational process of the organizational implementation of the percutaneous thermal ablation of small renal masses. This article is intended to familiarize readers in the medical field with the methods of structured transformational processes applicable to the clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Friedrich M. Lomoschitz
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic Hietzing, Wolkersbergenstrasse 1, A-1130 Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Management and Economics in Health Care, UMIT—University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060 Hall in Tirol, Austria;
- Correspondence:
| | - Harald Stummer
- Institute for Management and Economics in Health Care, UMIT—University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060 Hall in Tirol, Austria;
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ultrasound Correlates Highly with Cross Sectional Imaging for Small Renal Masses in a Contemporary Cohort. Urology 2022; 165:212-217. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.02.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2022] [Revised: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 02/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
|
6
|
Gopee-Ramanan P, Chin SS, Lim C, Shanbhogue KP, Schieda N, Krishna S. Renal Neoplasms in Young Adults. Radiographics 2022; 42:433-450. [PMID: 35230920 DOI: 10.1148/rg.210138] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is usually diagnosed in older adults (the median age of diagnosis is 64 years). Although less common in patients younger than 45 years, RCCs in young adults differ in clinical manifestation, pathologic diagnosis, and prognosis. RCCs in young adults are typically smaller, are more organ confined, and manifest at lower stages of disease. The proportion of clear cell RCC is lower in young adults, while the prevalence of familial renal neoplastic syndromes is much higher, and genetic testing is routinely recommended. In such syndromic manifestations, benign-appearing renal cysts can harbor malignancy. Radiologists need to be familiar with the differences of RCCs in young adults and apply an altered approach to diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance. For sporadic renal neoplasms, biopsy and active surveillance are less often used in young adults than in older adults. RCCs in young adults are overall associated with better disease-specific survival after surgical treatment, and minimally invasive nephron-sparing treatment options are preferred. However, surveillance schedules, need for biopsy, decision for an initial period of active surveillance, type of surgery (enucleation or wide-margin partial nephrectomy), and utilization of ablative therapy depend on the presence and type of underlying familial renal neoplastic syndrome. In this pictorial review, syndromic, nonsyndromic, and newer RCC entities that are common in young adults are presented. Their associated unique epidemiology, characteristic imaging and pathologic traits, and key aspects of surveillance and management of renal neoplasms in young adults are discussed. The vital role of the informed radiologist in the multidisciplinary management of RCCs in young adults is highlighted. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Prasaanthan Gopee-Ramanan
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4 (P.G.R., S.S.C., S.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada (C.L.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY (K.P.S.); and Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont, Canada (N.S.)
| | - Sook Suzy Chin
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4 (P.G.R., S.S.C., S.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada (C.L.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY (K.P.S.); and Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont, Canada (N.S.)
| | - Chris Lim
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4 (P.G.R., S.S.C., S.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada (C.L.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY (K.P.S.); and Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont, Canada (N.S.)
| | - Krishna P Shanbhogue
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4 (P.G.R., S.S.C., S.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada (C.L.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY (K.P.S.); and Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont, Canada (N.S.)
| | - Nicola Schieda
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4 (P.G.R., S.S.C., S.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada (C.L.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY (K.P.S.); and Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont, Canada (N.S.)
| | - Satheesh Krishna
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4 (P.G.R., S.S.C., S.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada (C.L.); Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY (K.P.S.); and Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont, Canada (N.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Earis D, Wall C, Sinclair N, Domes T, Jana K. The impact of a multidisciplinary small renal mass clinic on patient treatment decisions. Can Urol Assoc J 2022; 16:35-40. [PMID: 34582336 PMCID: PMC8932434 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.7307] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Small renal masses (SRMs) are managed with active surveillance (AS), thermal ablation (TA), irreversible electroporation (IRE), or surgery, depending on patient and tumor factors. A novel SRM multidisciplinary clinic (SRMC), involving urologists and interventional radiologists, was established to provide patients with information on treatments options. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the SRMC on treatment decision-making METHODS: Demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment decisions were prospectively collected on patients (n=216) attending the SRMC between 2016 and 2019. A retrospective historic cohort (n=238) seen by urologists was used as a control group. Key variables were analyzed and compared. Patient satisfaction (n=27) was surveyed and responses were summarized and explored. RESULTS Mean age, tumor size, and pathology was similar between groups; however, the SRMC cohort had more male patients (65.7% vs. 53.8%, p=0.009). Chosen treatment modality differed significantly between cohorts (p<0.0001). Patients in the historic cohort were treated by AS (41.5%), surgery (37.9%), TA (11.9%), watchful waiting (7.9%), and IRE (0.8%). SRMC patients were treated by TA (42.2%), AS (26.7%), surgery (21.3%), IRE (7.6%), and watchful waiting (2.2%). Post-hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences in proportions of AS, TA, IRE, and surgery between cohorts. Patients reported high satisfaction with the collaborative approach. CONCLUSIONS A multidisciplinary approach may have an impact on patient treatment decision-making for SRMs. Consultations involving a urologist and an interventional radiologist resulted in more TA and IRE and less AS and surgery. Future studies should evaluate if these findings occur in other centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danielle Earis
- College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
| | - Chris Wall
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Division of Interventional Radiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
| | - Nicolette Sinclair
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Division of Interventional Radiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
| | - Trustin Domes
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
| | - Kunal Jana
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Schieda N, Krishna S, Pedrosa I, Kaffenberger SD, Davenport MS, Silverman SG. Active Surveillance of Renal Masses: The Role of Radiology. Radiology 2021; 302:11-24. [PMID: 34812670 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021204227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Active surveillance of renal masses, which includes serial imaging with the possibility of delayed treatment, has emerged as a viable alternative to immediate therapeutic intervention in selected patients. Active surveillance is supported by evidence that many benign masses are resected unnecessarily, and treatment of small cancers has not substantially reduced cancer-specific mortality. These data are a call to radiologists to improve the diagnosis of benign renal masses and differentiate cancers that are biologically aggressive (prompting treatment) from those that are indolent (allowing treatment deferral). Current evidence suggests that active surveillance results in comparable cancer-specific survival with a low risk of developing metastasis. Radiology is central in this. Imaging is used at the outset to estimate the probability of malignancy and degree of aggressiveness in malignant masses and to follow up masses for growth and morphologic change. Percutaneous biopsy is used to provide a more definitive histologic diagnosis and to guide treatment decisions, including whether active surveillance is appropriate. Emerging applications that may improve imaging assessment of renal masses include standardized assessment of cystic and solid masses and radiomic analysis. This article reviews the current and future role of radiology in the care of patients with renal masses undergoing active surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Schieda
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 1H6 (N.S.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (S.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex (I.P.); Departments of Urology (S.D.K., M.S.D.) and Radiology (M.S.D.), Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich; and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (S.G.S.)
| | - Satheesh Krishna
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 1H6 (N.S.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (S.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex (I.P.); Departments of Urology (S.D.K., M.S.D.) and Radiology (M.S.D.), Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich; and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (S.G.S.)
| | - Ivan Pedrosa
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 1H6 (N.S.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (S.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex (I.P.); Departments of Urology (S.D.K., M.S.D.) and Radiology (M.S.D.), Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich; and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (S.G.S.)
| | - Samuel D Kaffenberger
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 1H6 (N.S.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (S.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex (I.P.); Departments of Urology (S.D.K., M.S.D.) and Radiology (M.S.D.), Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich; and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (S.G.S.)
| | - Matthew S Davenport
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 1H6 (N.S.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (S.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex (I.P.); Departments of Urology (S.D.K., M.S.D.) and Radiology (M.S.D.), Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich; and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (S.G.S.)
| | - Stuart G Silverman
- From the Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 1H6 (N.S.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (S.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex (I.P.); Departments of Urology (S.D.K., M.S.D.) and Radiology (M.S.D.), Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich; and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (S.G.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Couture F, Finelli T, Breau RH, Mallick R, Bhindi B, Tanguay S, Kapoor A, Rendon RA, Pouliot F, Lavallée L, Fairey AS, So A, Richard PO. The increasing use of renal tumor biopsy amongst Canadian urologists: When is biopsy most utilized? Urol Oncol 2021; 39:499.e15-499.e22. [PMID: 34187749 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2021] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/21/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The role of renal tumor biopsy (RTB) in the management of small renal masses (SRMs) is progressively being recognized as a tool to decrease overtreatment. While an increasing number of studies assessing its role in diagnostics are becoming available, RTB remains variably used amongst urologists. Many patient-, tumor-, and institution-related factors may influence urologists on whether to perform a RTB to help guide management. OBJECTIVE We aimed at identifying factors associated with the use of RTB for localized SRMs within a number of centers contributing data to the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system. MATERIAL AND METHODS We identified 3,838 patients diagnosed with a localized SRM (≤4 cm) between January 2011 and December 2018. Patients were stratified based on whether a RTB was performed prior to the primary therapeutic intervention. Factors associated with use of RTB were assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS A total of 993 patients (25.9%) underwent an RTB. There was an overall increase in RTB use over time (P < 0.001), with patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2018 undergoing more RTB than patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2014 (29.8% vs. 22.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). Patients managed in centers with the highest patient-volume had RTB more frequently than patients managed in low-volume centers. On multivariable analysis, increasing year of diagnosis was significantly associated with more RTB use. Patients treated with surgery underwent RTB statistically less often than patients undergoing thermal ablation (P < 0.001) or managed with active surveillance (P < 0.001). Larger SRMs were associated with more RTB use in patients on active surveillance (P = 0.009), but with less RTB in patients undergoing surgery (P = 0.045). CONCLUSION This large multicenter cohort study reveals an increasing adoption and overall use of RTB amongst Canadian urologists. Patients managed in high-volume centers and those undergoing non-surgical management were associated with greater use of RTB. Tumor size was also associated with RTB use. This study highlights the influence that physician perceptions and clinical factors may have in the decision to use RTB prior to initiating a therapeutic approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Félix Couture
- Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke and Centre de Recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Tony Finelli
- Division of Urology/Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rodney H Breau
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Ranjeeta Mallick
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Bimal Bhindi
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Simon Tanguay
- Department of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Anil Kapoor
- St. Joseph's Healthcare, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Ricardo A Rendon
- Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Frédéric Pouliot
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec Research Center, Quebec, QC, Canada
| | - Luke Lavallée
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Adrian S Fairey
- Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Alan So
- University of British Columbia, Urologic Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Patrick O Richard
- Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke and Centre de Recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Cui HW, Sullivan ME. Surveillance for low-risk kidney cancer: a narrative review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:2762-2786. [PMID: 34295761 PMCID: PMC8261444 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1295] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2020] [Accepted: 02/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
The management trend of low-risk kidney cancer over the last decade has been from treatment with radical nephrectomy, to use of nephron sparing procedures of partial nephrectomy and ablation, as well as the option of active surveillance (AS). This narrative review aims to summarise the available guidelines related to AS and review the published descriptions of regional practices on the management of low-risk kidney cancer worldwide. A search of PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases for studies published 2010 to June 2020 identified 15 studies, performed between 2000 and 2019, which investigated 13 different cohorts of low-risk kidney cancer patients on AS. Although international guidelines show a level of agreement in their recommendation on how AS is conducted, in terms of patient selection, surveillance strategy and triggers for intervention, cohort studies show distinct differences in worldwide practice of AS. Prospective studies showed general agreement in their predefined selection criteria for entry into AS. Retrospective studies showed that patients who were older, with greater comorbidities, worse performance status and smaller tumours were more likely to be managed with AS. The rate of percutaneous renal mass biopsy varied between studies from 2% to 56%. The surveillance protocol was different across all studies in terms of recommended modality and frequency of imaging. Of the 6 studies which had set indications for intervention, these were broadly in agreement. Despite clear criteria for intervention, patient or surgeon preference was still the reason in 11–71% of cases of delayed intervention across 5 studies. This review shows that AS is being applied in a variety of centres worldwide and that key areas of patient selection criteria and surveillance strategy have large similarities. However, the rate of renal mass biopsy and of delayed intervention varies significantly between studies, suggesting the process of diagnosing malignant SRM and decision making whilst on AS are varying in practice. Further research is needed on the diagnosis and characterisation of incidentally found small renal masses (SRM), using imaging and histology, and the natural history of these SRM in order to develop evidence-based active surveillance protocols.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Wei Cui
- Urology Department, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Mark Edward Sullivan
- Urology Department, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
McAlpine K, Finelli A. Natural history of untreated kidney cancer. World J Urol 2021; 39:2825-2829. [PMID: 33591379 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03578-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Accepted: 12/19/2020] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kristen McAlpine
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Available active surveillance follow-up protocols for small renal mass: a systematic review. World J Urol 2021; 39:2875-2882. [PMID: 33452911 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03581-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2020] [Accepted: 12/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate follow-up strategies for active surveillance of renal masses and to assess contemporary data. METHODS We performed a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Embase, Medline, and Cochrane). A systematic review of the follow-up protocols was carried out. A total of 20 studies were included. RESULT Our analysis highlights that most of the series used different protocols of follow-up without consistent differences in the outcomes. Most common protocol consisted in imaging and clinical evaluation at 3, 6, and 12 months and yearly thereafter. Median length of follow-up was 42 months (range 1-137). Mean age was 74 years (range 67-83). Of 2243 patients 223 (10%) died during the follow-up and 19 patients died of kidney cancer (0.8%). The growth rate was the most used parameter to evaluate disease progression eventually triggering delayed intervention. Maximal axial diameter was the most common method to evaluate growth rate. CT scan is the most used, probably because it is usually more precise than kidney ultrasound and more accessible than MRI. Performing chest X-ray at every check does not seem to alter the clinical outcome during AS. CONCLUSION The minimal cancer-specific mortality does not seem to correlate with the follow-up scheme. Outside of growth rate and initial size, imaging features to predict outcome of RCC during AS are limited. Active surveillance of SRM is a well-established treatment option. However, standardized follow-up protocols are lacking. Prospective, randomized, trials to evaluate the best follow-up strategies are pending.
Collapse
|
13
|
Protani MM, Joshi A, White V, Marco DJT, Neale RE, Coory MD, Giles GG, Bolton DM, Davis ID, Wood S, Jordan SJ. The role of renal mass biopsy in the management of small renal masses – patterns of use and surgeon opinion. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL UROLOGY 2020. [DOI: 10.1177/2051415819894181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Aims: Renal mass biopsy (RMB) is advocated to improve management of small renal masses, however there is concern about its clinical utility. This study aimed to elicit opinions about the role of RMB in small renal mass management from surgeons managing renal cell carcinomas (RCC), and examine the frequency of pre-treatment biopsy in those with RCC. Methods: All surgeons in two Australian states (Queensland: n = 59 and Victoria: n = 108) who performed nephrectomies for RCC in 2012/2013 were sent questionnaires to ascertain views about RMB. Response rates were 54% for Queensland surgeons and 38% for Victorian surgeons. We used medical records data from RCC patients to determine RMB frequency. Results: Most Queensland (81%) and Victorian (59%) surgeons indicated they rarely requested RMB; however 34% of Victorians reported often requesting RMB, compared with no Queensland surgeons. This was consistent with medical records data: 17.6% of Victorian patients with T1a tumours received RMB versus 6.7% of Queensland patients ( p < 0.001). Surgeons’ principal concerns regarding RMB related to sampling reliability (90%) and/or histopathological interpretation (76%). Conclusions: Most surgeons report infrequent use of RMB for small renal masses, however we observed practice variation. The principal reasons for infrequent use were concerns about sampling reliability and histopathological interpretation, which may be valid in regions with less access to interventional radiologists and uropathologists. Further evidence is required to define patient groups for whom biopsy results will alter management. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melinda M Protani
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
| | - Andre Joshi
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Victoria White
- Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
- Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - David JT Marco
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Palliative Care, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Rachel E Neale
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
| | | | - Graham G Giles
- Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Damien M Bolton
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ian D Davis
- Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Box Hill, Melbourne, Australia
- Eastern Health, Box Hill, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Simon Wood
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Susan J Jordan
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Garbens A, Wallis CJD, Klaassen Z, Saskin R, Plumptre L, Kodama R, Herschorn S, Nam RK. Comprehensive assessment of the morbidity of renal mass biopsy: A population-based assessment of biopsy-related complications. Can Urol Assoc J 2020; 15:42-47. [PMID: 32744997 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6477] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION We sought to assess seven-day and 30-day complications following renal mass biopsy (RMB), including mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and operative and non-operative complications and compare these to rates in population-matched controls. METHODS We performed a population-based, matched, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing RMB following consultation with a urologist and axial imaging from 2003-2015 in Ontario, Canada. Data on seven-day and 30-day rates of mortality, as well as operative and non operative complications after RMB were reported. The seven-day and 30-day rates of mortality, operative and non-operative interventions, hospitalizations, and ED visits were compared to matched controls using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS Among 6840 patients who underwent RMB in the study period, 24 (0.4%) and 159 (2.3%) died within seven and 30 days of their biopsy, respectively. Seven- and 30-day operative intervention rates were 79 (1.2%) and 236 (3.4%), respectively. Seven- and 30-day non-operative intervention rates were 227 (3.3%) and 529 (7.7%), respectively. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] 8.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.1-13.0), hospitalizations (OR 12.6, 95% CI 10.6-15.2), and ED visits (OR 3.8, 95% CI 3.4-4.3) were more common among patients who underwent RMB than the matched controls (p<0.001 for each). CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing RMB may have a small but non-negligible increased risk of mortality, hospital readmission, and ED visits compared to matched controls. However, limitations in the granularity of the dataset limits the strength of these conclusions. Further studies are needed to confirm our results. These risks should be discussed with patients for shared decision-making and considered in the risk/benefit tradeoff for the management of small renal masses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alaina Garbens
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Christopher J D Wallis
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Zachary Klaassen
- Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Georgia-Augusta University, Augusta, GA, United States
| | - Refik Saskin
- Institute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Ronald Kodama
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sender Herschorn
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Robert K Nam
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Asselin C, Finelli A, Breau RH, Mallick R, Kapoor A, Rendon RA, Tanguay S, Pouliot F, Fairey A, Lavallée LT, Bladou F, Kawakami J, So AI, Richard PO. Does renal tumor biopsies for small renal carcinoma increase the risk of upstaging on final surgery pathology report and the risk of recurrence? Urol Oncol 2020; 38:798.e9-798.e16. [PMID: 32693974 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2020] [Revised: 05/19/2020] [Accepted: 06/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Renal tumor biopsies (RTB) have been proposed as a means to diminish overtreatment of small renal masses. A potential concern of RTB is tumor seeding along the biopsy tract leading to worse clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES To evaluate whether RTB was associated with greater upstaging to pT3a compared to patients without a biopsy and to determine if pathologic upstaging affects the risk of recurrence. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS The Canadian Kidney Cancer information system was used to identify patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for malignant renal tumors ≤ 4cm (cT1a) between January 1, 2011 and July 2, 2019. INTERVENTION RTB prior to nephrectomy or nephrectomy without biopsy. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Upstaging to pT3a and cancer recurrence were compared between subjects that had a RTB compared to those who did not. A multivariable analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with disease upstaging and recurrence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The cohort consisted of 1993 cT1a patients, followed for a median of 17.5 months. Of these patients, 502 (25%) had a preoperative RTB. There was no difference in the proportion with tumor upstaging to pT3a between patients that had RTB compared to those who did not (7.2% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.5). On multivariable analysis, RTB was not associated with pathological upstaging (Odds Ratio 0.90; 95% Confidence Interval 0.61-1.34) or recurrence (Odds Ratio 1.04; 95% Confidence Interval 0.57-1.89). The main limitation is that the study is underpowered to detect small differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS In this large, multi-institution cohort, RTB was not associated with increased risk of tumor upstaging or recurrence. Hence, tumor tract seeding, although possible, should not be a clinical deterrent to using RTBs as a means of personalizing renal masses management and diminishing overtreatment. PATIENT SUMMARY Recent evidence suggests that tumor seeding following RTB may be more common than initially perceived. Our results have demonstrated that RTB was not associated with an increased risk of tumor upstaging or disease recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles Asselin
- Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | | | - Rodney H Breau
- Urology, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Urology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Anil Kapoor
- Urology, St. Joseph Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Urology, Juravinski Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Simon Tanguay
- Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Frédéric Pouliot
- Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Québec City, QC, Canada
| | | | | | - Franck Bladou
- Urology, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Jun Kawakami
- Urology, Alberta Health Service, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Alan I So
- Urology, British Columbia Cancer Care, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Patrick O Richard
- Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Achieving the "trifecta" with open versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. World J Urol 2020; 39:1569-1575. [PMID: 32656670 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03349-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2020] [Accepted: 07/07/2020] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The "trifecta" is a summary measure of outcome after partial nephrectomy (PN) that encompasses three parameters: negative surgical margin, ≤ 10% decrease in post-operative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and absence of urological complications. We assessed trifecta rates in patients undergoing open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and robotic PN (RPN) for a clinical T1 renal mass (≤ 7 cm). METHODS Clinical and pathologic parameters were extracted from the prospectively maintained Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System for patients treated between January 2011 and October 2018. Comparisons between groups were made using Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and Chi-squared independence test for categorical variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of each component of the trifecta and the trifecta itself. RESULTS Of 1708 total patients, 746 underwent OPN, 678 LPN, and 284 RPN for a T1 renal mass. A 'trifecta' was achieved in 53% OPN, 52% LPN and 47% RPN (p = 0.194). On multivariable analysis, OPN and LPN were associated with less frequent post-operative decline in eGFR and more frequent trifecta when compared to RPN, but there was no difference between OPN and LPN. OPN also predicted a higher rate of negative margins compared to RPN but not LPN. CONCLUSION After correction for confounding variables, OPN and LPN were more likely than RPN to achieve the trifecta, which appeared to be due primarily to loss of renal function. No difference was observed between OPN and LPN. Analyses were limited by the lack of nephrometry score.
Collapse
|
17
|
Lam CJ, Wong NC, Voss M, Mironov O, Connolly M, Matsumoto ED, Kapoor A. Surveillance post-radiofrequency ablation for small renal masses: Recurrence and followup. Can Urol Assoc J 2020; 14:398-403. [PMID: 32574144 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6374] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Small renal masses (SRMs), enhancing tumors <4 cm in diameter, are suspicious for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The incidence of SRMs have risen with the increased quality and frequency of imaging. Partial nephrectomy is widely accepted as a nephron-sparing approach for the management of clinically localized RCC, with a greater than 90% disease-specific survival for stage T1a. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been emerging as an alternative management strategy, with evidence suggesting RFA as a safe alternative for SRMs. We aimed to evaluate the time to recurrence and recurrence rates of SRMs treated with RFA at our institution. METHODS A retrospective review between October 2011 and May 2019 identified 141 patients with a single SRM treated with RFA at Hamilton Health Sciences and St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. Patients with familial syndromes and distant metastases were excluded. Repeat RFAs of the ipsilateral kidney for incomplete ablation were not considered a new procedure. The primary variable measured was time from initial ablation to recurrence. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to identify possible prognostic variables for tumor recurrence defined a priori, including age, gender, mass size, RENAL nephrometry, and PADUA scores. RESULTS The overall average age of our patients was 69.0±11.1 years, with 71.6% being male. Average tumor size was 2.6±0.8 cm. There were 22/154 total recurrences (15.6%) post-RFA. Median followup time was 67 (18-161) months. Those with new recurrences had median time to recurrence of 15 months and no recurrence beyond 53 months. Thirteen of 141 patients had residual disease (9.2%) and were identified within the first eight months post-RFA. The only prognostic variable identified as a predictor of residual disease was tumor size (hazard ratio 2.265; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS This study shows the risk of a new recurrence following RFA for SRMs is 6.4%. Most recurrences (9.2%) were a result of residual tumor at the ablation site identified within the first eight months post-RFA. No recurrences were identified beyond 53 months, with a total median followup time of 67 months. Tumor size alone, without need for complex scoring systems, may serve as a predictor of incomplete ablation following RFA and could be used to assist in shared decision-making on management strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cameron J Lam
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Nathan C Wong
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Maurice Voss
- Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Oleg Mironov
- Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Michael Connolly
- Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Edward D Matsumoto
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Anil Kapoor
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
McAlpine K, Breau RH, Stacey D, Knee C, Jewett MAS, Violette PD, Richard PO, Cagiannos I, Morash C, Lavallée LT. Shared decision-making for the management of small renal masses: Development and acceptability testing of a novel patient decision aid. Can Urol Assoc J 2020; 14:385-391. [PMID: 32574143 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6575] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Shared decision-making incorporates patients' values and preferences to achieve high-quality decisions. The objective of this study was to develop an acceptable patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of small renal masses (SRMs). METHODS The International Patient Decision Aids Standards were used to guide an evidence-based development process. Management options included active surveillance, thermal ablation, partial nephrectomy, and radical nephrectomy. A literature review was performed to provide incidence rates for outcomes of each option. Once a prototype was complete, alpha-testing was performed using a 10-question survey to assess acceptability with patients, patient advocates, urologists, and methodological experts. The primary outcome was acceptability of the decision aid. RESULTS A novel patient decision aid was created to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of SRMs. Acceptability testing was performed with 20 patients, 10 urologists, two patient advocates, and one methodological expert. Responders indicated the decision aid was appropriate in length (82%, 27/33), well-balanced (82%, 27/33), and had language that was easy to follow (94%, 31/33). All patient responders felt the decision aid would have been helpful during their consultation and would recommend the decision aid for future patients (100%, 20/20). Most urologists reported they intend to use the decision aid (90%, 9/10). CONCLUSIONS A novel patient decision aid was created to facilitate shared decision-making for management of SRMs. This clinical tool was acceptable with patients, patient advocates, and urologists and is freely available at: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decaids.html.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rodney H Breau
- Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Dawn Stacey
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Christopher Knee
- Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Michael A S Jewett
- Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Philippe D Violette
- Departments of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact and Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Patrick O Richard
- Division of Urology, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Ilias Cagiannos
- Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Christopher Morash
- Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Luke T Lavallée
- Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Gillis CJ, Rendon R, MacDonald LP, Jewett MA, French C, Ajzenberg H, Almatar A, Abdolell M, Organ M. Identification of tumor size as the only factor associated with nondiagnostic biopsies in patients with small renal masses. Can Urol Assoc J 2020; 14:E220-E223. [PMID: 31793862 PMCID: PMC7197968 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION As greater numbers of small renal masses (SRMs) are discovered incidentally, renal tumor biopsy (RTB) is an increasingly recognized step for the management of these lesions, ideally for the prevention of surgical overtreatment for benign disease. While the diagnosis can often be obtained preoperatively by RTB, indeterminate results create greater difficulty for patients and clinicians. This study examines a series of RTBs, identifying the portion of these that were able to yield a diagnosis, and correlates patient factors, including RENAL and PADUA scoring, with the outcome of a non-diagnostic result. METHODS Patients were identified as having undergone RTB at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Ontario, Canada, between January 2000 and December 2009. Data was compiled from these 423 patients and analyzed using CART methodology to determine the level of association between various patient and tumor factors and the outcome of a non-diagnostic biopsy. Tumor size was further used to develop a classification tree to describe the prediction of a non-diagnostic biopsy. RESULTS Of these 423 patients undergoing RTB, 66 (16%) resulted in a non-diagnostic biopsy. The only patient or tumor factor that was found to be associated with a non-diagnostic outcome was mass size, where small masses (<1.28 cm diameter) were found to have a 38% chance of being non-diagnostic, compared with a 13% chance in those tumors >1.28 cm diameter (86% accuracy, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.89). CONCLUSIONS When evaluating SRMs for diagnostic workup, mass size is the only tumor or patient characteristic associated with a non-diagnostic RTB.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ricardo Rendon
- Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | | | - Michael A.S. Jewett
- Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | | | - Ashraf Almatar
- Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital-Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Mohammed Abdolell
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Michael Organ
- Department of Urology, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Prognostic urinary miRNAs for the assessment of small renal masses. Clin Biochem 2020; 75:15-22. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2019] [Revised: 09/19/2019] [Accepted: 10/07/2019] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
|
21
|
Lavallée LT, McAlpine K, Kapoor A, Pouliot F, Mason R, Violette PD, Bansal RK, Richard PO, Karakiewicz PI, Bhindi B, Maloni R, Pautler S, Lattouf JB, Kassouf W, Tanguay S, So A, Rendon RA, Breau RH. Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) consensus statement on the role of renal mass biopsy in the management of kidney cancer. Can Urol Assoc J 2019; 13:377-383. [PMID: 31799919 PMCID: PMC6892686 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6176] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Luke T. Lavallée
- Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Anil Kapoor
- Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Frédéric Pouliot
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada
| | - Ross Mason
- Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Philippe D. Violette
- Departments of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact and Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Rahul K. Bansal
- Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | | | | | - Bimal Bhindi
- Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | | | - Stephen Pautler
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | | | - Wassim Kassouf
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Simon Tanguay
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Alan So
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | - Rodney H. Breau
- Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Identification of Prognostic Biomarkers in the Urinary Peptidome of the Small Renal Mass. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY 2019; 189:2366-2376. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2019.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2019] [Revised: 08/12/2019] [Accepted: 08/20/2019] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
|
23
|
Breau RH, Cagiannos I, Knoll G, Morash C, Cnossen S, Lavallée LT, Mallick R, Finelli A, Jewett M, Leibovich BC, Cook J, LeBel L, Kapoor A, Pouliot F, Izawa J, Rendon R, Fergusson DA. Renal hypothermia during partial nephrectomy for patients with renal tumours: a randomised controlled clinical trial protocol. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e025662. [PMID: 30610026 PMCID: PMC6326302 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Partial nephrectomy is a standard of care for non-metastatic renal tumours when technically feasible. Despite the increased use of partial nephrectomy, intraoperative techniques that lead to optimal renal function after surgery have not been rigorously studied. Clamping of the renal hilum to prevent bleeding during resection causes temporary renal ischaemia. The internal temperature of the kidney may be lowered after the renal hilum is clamped (renal hypothermia) in an attempt to mitigate the effects of ischaemia. Our objective is to determine if renal hypothermia during open partial nephrectomy results in improved postoperative renal function at 12 months following surgery as compared with warm ischaemia (no renal hypothermia). METHODS AND ANALYSES This is a multicentre, randomised, single-blinded controlled trial comparing renal hypothermia versus no hypothermia during open partial nephrectomy. Due to the nature of the intervention, complete blinding of the surgical team is not possible; however, surgeons will be blinded until the time of hilar clamping. Glomerular filtration will be based on plasma clearance of a radionucleotide, and differential renal function will be based on renal scintigraphy. The primary outcome is overall renal function at 12 months measured by the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Secondary outcomes include change in GFR, GFR of the affected kidney, change in GFR of the affected kidney, serum creatinine, haemoglobin, spot urine albumin to creatinine ratio, quality of life and postoperative complications. Data will be collected at baseline, immediately postoperatively and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics approval was obtained for all participating study sites. Results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01529658; Pre-results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rodney H Breau
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ilias Cagiannos
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Greg Knoll
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Christopher Morash
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sonya Cnossen
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Luke T Lavallée
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ranjeeta Mallick
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael Jewett
- Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Jonathan Cook
- Oxford Clinical Trial Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Louise LeBel
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Anil Kapoor
- Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Frederic Pouliot
- Division of Urology, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Jonathan Izawa
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ricardo Rendon
- Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Dean A Fergusson
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Active Surveillance of Small Renal Masses. Urology 2019; 123:157-166. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.09.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2018] [Revised: 09/10/2018] [Accepted: 09/18/2018] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
|
25
|
Touma NJ, Hosier GW, Di Lena MA, Leslie RJ, Ho L, Menard A, Siemens DR. Growth rates and outcomes of observed large renal masses. Can Urol Assoc J 2018; 13:276-281. [PMID: 30526807 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.5545] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The natural history of small renal masses has been well defined, leading to the recommendation of active surveillance in some patients with limited life expectancy. However, this information is less clear for large renal masses (LRM), leading to ambiguity for management in the older, comorbid patient. The objective of this study was to define the natural history, including the growth rate and metastatic risk, of LRM in order to better counsel patients regarding active surveillance. METHODS This was a retrospective review of patients with solid renal masses >4 cm that had repeated imaging identified from an institutional imaging database. Patient comorbidities and outcomes were obtained through retrospective chart analysis. Outcomes assessed included tumour growth and metastatic rates, as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) usimg Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS We identified 69 patients between 2005 and 2016 who met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at study entry was 75.5 years; mean tumour maximal dimension at study entry was 5.6 cm. CSS was 83% and OS 63% for patients presenting without metastasis, with a mean followup of 57.5 months. The mean growth rate of those that developed metastasis during followup (n=15) was 0.98 cm/year (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.63) as compared to those that did not develop metastasis (n=46), with a growth rate of 0.67 cm/year (95% CI 0.34-1) (non-significant). Seven patients had evidence of metastasis at the baseline imaging of their LRM and had subsequent growth rate of 1.47 cm/year (95% CI 0.37-2.57) (non-significant) CONCLUSIONS: Compared to small renal masses, LRM are associated with higher metastasis rates and lower CSS and more rapid growth rates. Selection criteria for recommending observation of LRM in older, comorbid patients should be more conservative than for small renal masses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naji J Touma
- Department of Urology, Queen's University Kingston, ON, Canada
| | | | | | - Robert J Leslie
- Department of Urology, Queen's University Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Louisa Ho
- Department of Urology, Queen's University Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Alexandre Menard
- Department of Radiology, Queen's University Kingston, ON, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Abstract
Renal cell cancer (RCC) (epithelial carcinoma of the kidney) represents 2%-4% of newly diagnosed adult tumors. Over the past 2 decades, RCC has been better characterized clinically and molecularly. It is a heterogeneous disease, with multiple subtypes, each with characteristic histology, genetics, molecular profiles, and biologic behavior. Tremendous heterogeneity has been identified with many distinct subtypes characterized. There are clinical questions to be addressed at every stage of this disease, and new targets being identified for therapeutic development. The unique characteristics of the clinical presentations of RCC have led to both questions and opportunities for improvement in management. Advances in targeted drug development and understanding of immunologic control of RCC are leading to a number of new clinical trials and regimens for advanced disease, with the goal of achieving long-term disease-free survival, as has been achieved in a proportion of such patients historically. RCC management is a promising area of ongoing clinical investigation.
Collapse
|
27
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To review the growth kinetics of small renal masses and available imaging modalities for mass characterization and surveillance, highlight current organizational recommendations for the active surveillance of small renal masses, and discuss the most recently reported oncological outcomes of patients as they relate to various surveillance imaging protocols and progression to delayed intervention. RECENT FINDINGS Overall, organizational guideline recommendations are broad and lack specifics regarding timing and modality for follow-up imaging of small renal masses. Additionally, despite general consensus in the literature about certain criteria to trigger delayed intervention, there exist no formal guidelines. Active surveillance of small renal masses is an acceptable management strategy for patients with prohibitive surgical risk; however, standardized imaging protocols for surveillance are lacking, as are randomized, prospective trials to evaluate the ideal follow-up protocol.
Collapse
|
28
|
Comparisons of percutaneous versus retroperitoneoscopic cryoablation for renal masses. Int Urol Nephrol 2018; 50:1407-1415. [PMID: 30022280 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-018-1925-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2018] [Accepted: 06/23/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Preserving renal function and controlling oncological outcomes are pertinent while managing renal tumours. We compared outcomes of percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) and retroperitoneoscopic cryoablation (RCA) in patients with renal neoplasms. METHODS We identified 108 patients with renal tumours at two medical centres, where 63 patients received PCA and 45 patients underwent RCA from August 2009 to July 2015, and they were followed up until February 2017. We compared preoperative and postoperative parameters, namely gender, systemic diseases, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index (BMI), haemoglobin, the estimated glomerular filtration rate, tumour size, operative time, tumour type, Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications, and tumour recurrence, by using an independent sample t test, Pearson's Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, a Mann-Whitney test, and a generalised linear model. RESULTS Based on baseline characteristics, we found that the patients in the PCA group were older and had higher BMI than those in the RCA group, whereas the patients in the RCA group had more comorbidities than those in the PCA group. Retroperitoneoscopic and percutaneous methods had similar operative times, blood transfusion rates, postoperative fever episodes, and complication rates for either minor or major complications. However, the percutaneous method was associated with a shorter length of stay. No patient experienced deterioration in renal function until 2 years after both procedures. Impaired renal function was found in both groups in the 3-year follow-up. In both groups, tumour recurrence was significant for tumours > 4 cm. CONCLUSIONS Our results confirm that both cryoablation methods (PCA and RCA) are safe and effective for renal cell carcinoma. Favourable oncological control was achieved in both groups if the renal tumour size was ≤ 4 cm.
Collapse
|
29
|
Cheon PM, Rebello R, Naqvi A, Popovic S, Bonert M, Kapoor A. Anastomosing hemangioma of the kidney: radiologic and pathologic distinctions of a kidney cancer mimic. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 25:e220-e223. [PMID: 29962849 DOI: 10.3747/co.25.3927] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Anastomosing hemangioma (ah) is a rare subtype of primary vascular tumour that can, clinically and radiologically, present similarly to malignant renal tumours such as renal cell carcinoma (rcc) and angiosarcoma. Rarely seen in the genitourinary system, the ah we report here occurred in a 40-year-old male patient diagnosed initially with rcc based on imaging and successfully treated by laparoscopic left radical nephrectomy, with adrenal sparing and perihilar lymph node dissection. The pathologic diagnosis of ah can be challenging on small biopsy specimens; we therefore opine that it is appropriate to excise these lesions to facilitate diagnosis and definitively exclude common renal cancers. However, in this review, we describe some radiologic and pathologic distinctions between ah and malignant tumours.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - A Naqvi
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
| | - S Popovic
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
| | - M Bonert
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Varghese BA, Chen F, Hwang DH, Cen SY, Gill IS, Duddalwar VA. Differentiating solid, non-macroscopic fat containing, enhancing renal masses using fast Fourier transform analysis of multiphase CT. Br J Radiol 2018; 91:20170789. [PMID: 29888982 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To test the feasibility of two-dimensional fast Fourier transforms (FFT)-based imaging metrics in differentiating solid, non-macroscopic fat containing, enhancing renal masses using contrast-enhanced CT images. We quantify image-based intratumoral textural variations (indicator of tumor heterogeneity) using frequency-based (FFT) imaging metrics. METHODS In this Institutional Review Board approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act -compliant, retrospective case-control study, we evaluated 156 patients with predominantly solid, non-macroscopic fat containing, enhancing renal masses identified between June 2009 and June 2016. 110 cases (70%) were malignant RCC, including clear cell, papillary and chromophobe subtypes and, 46 cases (30%) were benign renal masses: oncocytoma and lipid-poor angiomyolipoma. Whole lesions were manually segmented using Synapse 3D (Fujifilm, CT) and co-registered from the multiphase CT acquisitions for each tumor. Pathological diagnosis of all tumors was obtained following surgical resection. Matlab function, FFT2 was used to perform the image to frequency transformation. RESULTS A Wilcoxon rank sum test showed that FFT-based metrics were significantly (p < 0.005) different between 1. benign vs malignant renal masses, 2. oncocytoma vs clear cell renal cell carcinoma and 3. oncocytoma vs lipid-poor angiomyolipoma. Receiver operator characteristics analysis revealed reasonable discrimination (area under the curve >0.7, p < 0.05) within these three groups of comparisons. CONCLUSION In combination with other metrics, FFT-metrics may improve patient management and potentially help differentiate other renal tumors. Advances in knowledge: We report for the first time that FFT-based metrics can differentiate between some solid, non-macroscopic fat containing, enhancing renal masses using their contrast-enhanced CT data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bino A Varghese
- 1 Department of Radiology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA
| | - Frank Chen
- 1 Department of Radiology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA
| | - Darryl H Hwang
- 1 Department of Radiology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA
| | - Steven Y Cen
- 1 Department of Radiology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA
| | - Inderbir S Gill
- 2 Institute of Urology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA
| | - Vinay A Duddalwar
- 1 Department of Radiology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA.,2 Institute of Urology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA , USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
2018 CUA Abstracts. Can Urol Assoc J 2018; 12:S51-S136. [PMID: 29877793 PMCID: PMC5991937] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
|
32
|
Hoare D, Evans H, Richards H, Samji R. Evaluating the role for renal biopsy in T1 and T2 renal masses: A single-centre study. Can Urol Assoc J 2018; 12:E226-E230. [PMID: 29405911 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.4831] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Once used primarily in the identification of renal metastasis and lymphomas, various urological bodies are now adopting an expanded role for the renal biopsy. We sought to evaluate the role of the renal biopsy in a Canadian context, focusing on associated adverse events, radiographic burden, and diagnostic accuracy. METHODS This retrospective review incorporated all patients undergoing ultrasound (US)/computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsies for T1 and T2 renal masses. There were no age or lesion size limitations. The primary outcome of interest was the correlation between initial biopsy and final surgical pathology. A binomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine any confounding factors. Secondary outcomes included the accuracy of tumour cell typing, grading, the safety profile, and radiographic burden associated with these patients. RESULTS A total of 148 patients satisfied inclusion criteria for this study. Mean age and lesions size at detection were 60.9 years (±12.4) and 3.6 cm (±2.0), respectively. Most renal masses were identified with US (52.7%) or CT (44.6%). Three patients (2.0%) experienced adverse events of note. Eighty-six patients (58.1%) proceeded to radical/partial nephrectomy. Our biopsies held a diagnostic accuracy of 90.7% (sensitivity 96.2%, specificity 87.5%, positive predictive value 98.7%, negative predictive value 70.0%, kappa 0.752, p<0.0005). Binomial logistic regression revealed that age, lesion size, number of radiographic tests, time to biopsy, and modality of biopsy (US/CT) had no influence on the diagnostic accuracy of biopsies. CONCLUSIONS Renal biopsies are safe, feasible, and diagnostic. Their role should be expanded in the routine evaluation of T1 and T2 renal masses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dylan Hoare
- Division of Urology; University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Howard Evans
- Division of Urology; University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Heidi Richards
- Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging; University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Rahim Samji
- Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging; University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Active Surveillance in Small Renal Masses in the Elderly: A Literature Review. Eur Urol Focus 2017; 3:340-351. [PMID: 29175368 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2017] [Revised: 11/06/2017] [Accepted: 11/14/2017] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Small renal masses have become increasingly common due to widespread imaging; however, optimal management of these lesions in the elderly can be complex due to the competing risks of intervention, natural history of disease, patient comorbidities, and expectations. In the properly selected elderly patient, active surveillance remains an accepted and attractive treatment approach. OBJECTIVE We completed a literature review of small renal masses (enhancing, <4cm, T1aN0M0 disease) in the elderly, aged ≥70 yr, aimed at identifying the utility of active surveillance in this population. The primary outcomes were conversion to active treatment while on active surveillance and cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes included predictors of treatment, type of treatment performed (partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, and ablation), progression to metastases, all-cause mortality, tumor growth rate, and demographic data including age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A comprehensive search of electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) using search terms "small renal mass" OR "SRM", AND "elderly," "senior," "aging," "geriatric," OR "octogenarian" was completed. All randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized comparison studies, and case series were included and screened by the reviewers. All comparison studies included in the systematic review were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Seventeen primary studies including 36495 patients met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. All studies were retrospective institutional chart or the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database reviews. There was a low (4-26%) rate of conversion to active treatment for active surveillance in the identified studies over a follow-up interval of up to 91.5 mo. Overall mortality was substantial in this elderly cohort, with 15-51% of patients being deceased over the course of study follow-up; however, there was minimal cancer-specific mortality due to patients succumbing to alternative comorbid disease. In the future, patient comorbidity and biological age versus the natural history of the individualized tumor biology may play an increasing role in the discussion regarding treatment options and consideration of active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS Active surveillance is an effective management strategy in the elderly population. Few patients required the conversion to active treatment and there was low cancer-specific mortality. The majority of patients who expired over the course of the identified studies succumbed to alternative disease. The goal of treatment strategies should include weighing patient-specific prognosis relative to their competing health risks and treatment goals against the natural history of disease and risks of intervention. PATIENT SUMMARY In this review article, the authors examined the utility of active surveillance in the setting of a small localized renal mass in the elderly population. Despite being on surveillance, we found that cancer-specific outcomes were excellent, and overall mortality was often a result of comorbid disease. However, there is significant heterogeneity among elderly patients, and treatment approaches should be focused around patient-centered goals and prognosis.
Collapse
|
34
|
Krishna S, Murray CA, McInnes MD, Chatelain R, Siddaiah M, Al-Dandan O, Narayanasamy S, Schieda N. CT imaging of solid renal masses: pitfalls and solutions. Clin Radiol 2017; 72:708-721. [PMID: 28592361 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2016] [Revised: 04/20/2017] [Accepted: 05/02/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) remains the first-line imaging test for the characterisation of renal masses; however, CT has inherent limitations, which if unrecognised, may result in errors. The purpose of this manuscript is to present 10 pitfalls in the CT evaluation of solid renal masses. Thin section non-contrast enhanced CT (NECT) is required to confirm the presence of macroscopic fat and diagnosis of angiomyolipoma (AML). Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can mimic renal cysts at NECT when measuring <20 HU, but are usually heterogeneous with irregular margins. Haemorrhagic cysts (HC) may simulate solid lesions at NECT; however, a homogeneous lesion measuring >70 HU is essentially diagnostic of HC. Homogeneous lesions measuring 20-70 HU at NECT or >20 HU at contrast-enhanced (CE) CT, are indeterminate, requiring further evaluation. Dual-energy CT (DECT) can accurately characterise these lesions at baseline through virtual NECT, iodine overlay images, or quantitative iodine concentration analysis without recalling the patient. A minority of hypo-enhancing renal masses (most commonly papillary RCC) show indeterminate or absent enhancement at multiphase CT. Follow-up, CE ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is required to further characterise these lesions. Small (<3 cm) endophytic cysts commonly show pseudo-enhancement, which may simulate RCC; this can be overcome with DECT or MRI. In small (<4 cm) solid renal masses, 20% of lesions are benign, chiefly AML without visible fat or oncocytoma. Low-dose techniques may simulate lesion heterogeneity due to increased image noise, which can be ameliorated through the appropriate use of iterative reconstruction algorithms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Krishna
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - C A Murray
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - M D McInnes
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - R Chatelain
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - M Siddaiah
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - O Al-Dandan
- Department of Radiology, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - S Narayanasamy
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - N Schieda
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Ristau BT, Kutikov A, Uzzo RG, Smaldone MC. Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses: When Less is More. Eur Urol Focus 2017; 2:660-668. [PMID: 28723504 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2017] [Accepted: 04/05/2017] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT A marked increase in incidentally detected small renal masses (SRMs) has occurred over the past decade. Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an initial management option for these patients. OBJECTIVE (1) To determine selection criteria, assess appropriate imaging modalities and surveillance frequencies, and define triggers for delayed intervention (DI) for patients on AS. (2) To describe oncologic outcomes for patients on AS protocols. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The PubMed database was queried for English language articles using the keywords "surveillance" and "renal mass" or "renal cell carcinoma" or "kidney cancer." The level of evidence, sample size, study design, and relevance to the review were considered as inclusion criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 69 manuscripts were included in the review. Selection criteria at initial evaluation for patients interested in AS include patient-related factors (eg, age, baseline renal function, other comorbidities), tumor-related factors (size, complexity, history of growth, possible renal mass biopsy), and patient preferences (illness uncertainty, quality of life). Cross-sectional imaging is the preferred initial imaging modality. Surveillance imaging should be performed at frequent intervals (3-4 mo) up front; intervals can be reduced over time if favorable growth kinetics are demonstrated. Delayed intervention (DI) should be considered for rapid tumor growth (eg,>0.5cm/yr), an increase in maximum tumor diameter >3-4cm, malignant renal mass biopsy results, development of symptoms, or patient preferences. Oncologic outcomes in well-controlled studies demonstrate a metastatic rate of 1-2%. Most patients who undergo DI remain eligible for nephron-sparing approaches; oncologic outcomes are not compromised by DI strategies. CONCLUSIONS A period of initial AS is safe for most patients with SRMs. Management decisions should focus on a thorough assessment of risk-benefit trade-offs, judiciously integrating patient-related factors, tumor-related factors, and patient preferences. PATIENT SUMMARY A period of initial active surveillance for kidney masses of ≤4cm in diameter is safe in most patients. Frequent imaging and follow-up are necessary to determine if the tumor grows. If delayed intervention becomes necessary, cancer outcomes are not compromised by the initial choice of active surveillance when patients adhere to close follow-up regimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin T Ristau
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Alexander Kutikov
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Robert G Uzzo
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Marc C Smaldone
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Richard PO, Violette PD, Jewett MAS, Pouliot F, Leveridge M, So A, Whelan TF, Rendon R, Finelli A. CUA guideline on the management of cystic renal lesions. Can Urol Assoc J 2017; 11:E66-E73. [PMID: 28360949 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.4484] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick O Richard
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke and Centre de recherche du CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | | | - Michael A S Jewett
- Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Frederic Pouliot
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Université Laval, Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Quebec City, QC, Canada
| | - Michael Leveridge
- Department of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Alan So
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Thomas F Whelan
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Saint John Regional Hospital, Dalhousie University, Saint John, NB
| | - Ricardo Rendon
- Department of Urology, QEII Health Sciences Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Finelli A, Ismaila N, Bro B, Durack J, Eggener S, Evans A, Gill I, Graham D, Huang W, Jewett MAS, Latcha S, Lowrance W, Rosner M, Shayegan B, Thompson RH, Uzzo R, Russo P. Management of Small Renal Masses: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:668-680. [PMID: 28095147 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.69.9645] [Citation(s) in RCA: 243] [Impact Index Per Article: 30.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To provide recommendations for the management options for patients with small renal masses (SRMs). Methods By using a literature search and prospectively defined study selection, we sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, prospective comparative observational studies, and retrospective studies published from 2000 through 2015. Outcomes included recurrence-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. Results Eighty-three studies, including 20 systematic reviews and 63 primary studies, met the eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. Recommendations On the basis of tumor-specific findings and competing risks of mortality, all patients with an SRM should be considered for a biopsy when the results may alter management. Active surveillance should be an initial management option for patients who have significant comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Partial nephrectomy (PN) for SRMs is the standard treatment that should be offered to all patients for whom an intervention is indicated and who possess a tumor that is amenable to this approach. Percutaneous thermal ablation should be considered an option if complete ablation can reliably be achieved. Radical nephrectomy for SRMs should only be reserved for patients who possess a tumor of significant complexity that is not amenable to PN or for whom PN may result in unacceptable morbidity even when performed at centers with expertise. Referral to a nephrologist should be considered if chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2) or progressive chronic kidney disease occurs after treatment, especially if associated with proteinuria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Finelli
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Nofisat Ismaila
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Bill Bro
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jeremy Durack
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Scott Eggener
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Andrew Evans
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Inderbir Gill
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - David Graham
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - William Huang
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Michael A S Jewett
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Sheron Latcha
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - William Lowrance
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Mitchell Rosner
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Bobby Shayegan
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - R Houston Thompson
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Robert Uzzo
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Paul Russo
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
|
39
|
Goren MR, Erbay G, Ozer C, Goren V, Bal N. Bilateral renal leiomyoma with 5 year follow-up: Case report. Can Urol Assoc J 2015; 9:E734-6. [PMID: 26664510 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.3011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Renal leiomyomas are exceptionally rare benign tumours of the kidney. Although the renal leiomyomas usually do not metastasize, the differential diagnosis between renal leiomyomas and malign lesions (leiomyosarcoma or renal cell carcinoma) cannot be done by radiological examinations, but is possible by histological examination. Surgery is the preferred treatment. After surgery, the prognosis is excellent without recurrence. Although uterine leiomyomas can be multicentric, renal leiomyomas have been single lesions. We report an incidentally detected case of bilateral renal leiomyoma in a 50-year-old woman with a 5-year follow-up. We also review the literature and discuss clinical, radiological and histological features of renal leiomyomas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mehmet Resit Goren
- Department of Urology, Baskent University Adana Medical and Research Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Gurcan Erbay
- Department of Radiology, Baskent University Adana Medical and Research Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Cevahir Ozer
- Department of Urology, Baskent University Adana Medical and Research Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Vinil Goren
- Department of Radiology, Minister of Health Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey
| | - Nebil Bal
- Department of Pathology, Baskent University Adana Medical and Research Center, Adana, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Black P. Canadian guidelines for SRMs: How Canadian are they? Can Urol Assoc J 2015; 9:163-213. [PMID: 26225163 PMCID: PMC4479635 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.3040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/27/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
| |
Collapse
|