Home > Journals > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 August;72(4) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 August;72(4):389-407

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 August;72(4):389-407

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03870-9

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Triggers for delayed intervention in patients with small renal masses undergoing active surveillance: a systematic review

Riccardo CAMPI 1, 2, 3 , Francesco SESSA 1, 2, Francesco CORTI 1, Diego M. CARRION 3, 4, Andrea MARI 1, 2, Daniele AMPARORE 5, Maria C. MIR 6, Cristian FIORI 5, Rocco PAPALIA 7, Alexander KUTIKOV 8, Alessandro VOLPE 9, Umberto CAPITANIO 10, Phillip M. PIERORAZIO 11, Roberto M. SCARPA 7, Francesco PORPIGLIA 5, Andrea MINERVINI 1, 2, Sergio SERNI 1, 2, Francesco ESPERTO 3, 7, on behalf of the European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU) and the EAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer group

1 Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 2 Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 3 European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, the Netherlands; 4 Department of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 5 Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy; 6 Department of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain; 7 Department of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy; 8 Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 9 Department of Urology, University of Eastern Piedmont, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy; 10 Division of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy; 11 Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA



INTRODUCTION: Patients with small renal masses (SRM) can be exposed to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. As such, active surveillance (AS) is recommended by all Guidelines for selected patients. However, it remains underutilized. One key reason is the lack of consensus on the factors prompting delayed intervention (DI). Herein we provide an updated overview of the triggers for DI in patients with SRMs initially undergoing AS.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed according to the PRISMA statement recommendations using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 10 prospective studies including 1870 patients were included. Median patient age ranged between 64 and 75 years, while median tumor size between 1.7 cm to 2.3 cm. The proportion of cystic SRMs ranged from 0% to 30%. Baseline renal tumor biopsy was performed in 7-45.2% of patients. Among these, malignant histology was found in 28.5%-83.3% of cases. Overall, the median growth rate of SRMs ranged between 0.10 and 0.27 cm/year. The proportion of patients undergoing DI ranged between 7% and 44%, after a median AS period of 12-27 months. The most commonly performed type of DI was surgery. Of resected SRMs, 0% to 30% were benign. The actual triggers for DI were either tumor-related (renal mass growth, stage progression, development of local complications/symptoms) or patient-related (patient preference, improved medical conditions, or qualification for other surgical procedures). At a median follow-up of 21.7 - 57-6 months, the proportion of patients experiencing metastatic disease, cancer-specific and other-cause mortality was 0-3.1%, 0-4% and 0-45.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence shows that both tumor-related and patient-related factors are ultimate triggers for DI in patients with SRMs undergoing AS. However, the level of evidence is still low and further research is needed to individualize AS strategies according to both tumor biology and patient-related characteristics and values.


KEY WORDS: Watchful waiting; Carcinoma, renal cell; Review

top of page