4.3 Article

Active Surveillance of Renal Masses: An Analysis of Growth Kinetics and Clinical Outcomes Stratified by Radiological Characteristics at Diagnosis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL
卷 40, 期 5, 页码 627-636

出版社

BRAZILIAN SOC UROL
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.05.07

关键词

Watchful Waiting; Chronotherapy; Angiomyolipoma; Kinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine the growth rate of renal masses (RMs) under active surveillance (AS), and to describe the clinical outcome of AS patients. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of an AS database to obtain demographics, radiological and pathologic characteristics and RM size of patients. RMs were followed at 6-12 month intervals for >= 1 year with computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or renal ultrasound. Kaplan-Meier analysis determined the annual likelihood of intervention. RMs were divided into 3 radiographic subcategories (solid, cystic, and angiomyolipoma). A linear regression model determined RM growth rates. Results: 131 RMs in 114 patients were included. Median age, Charlson Comorbidity Index score and mean follow-up were 69.1 years, 4.0 and 4.2 +/- 2.6 years, respectively. Maximal tumor diameter (MTD) at diagnosis was 2.1 +/- 1.3 cm. 49 RMs exhibited negative or zero net growth. Mean MTD growth rate for all RMs was 0.72 +/- 3.2 (95% CI: 0.16-1.28) mm/year. When stratified by MTD at diagnosis, mean RM growth rates were 0.84, 0.84, 0.44, 0.74 and 0.71 mm/year for RMs <1 cm, 1-<2cm, 2-<3cm, 3-<4cm and = 4cm, respectively (p<0.01). The 5 and 10-year freedom from intervention rates were 93.1% and 88.5%, respectively. There was a single case of suspected metastases, but no deaths related to kidney cancer. Conclusions: RMs under AS grew slowly, and had a low incidence of requiring surgical intervention and progression. Solid enhancing masses grew slowly, and were more likely to trigger intervention. AS should be considered for selected patients with small RMs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据