4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The natural history of incidentally detected small renal masses

期刊

CANCER
卷 100, 期 4, 页码 738-745

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20025

关键词

kidney; renal cell carcinoma; natural history; surveillance; follow-up studies

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing, largely due to the widespread use of cross-sectional imaging. Most renal tumors are detected incidentally as small, asymptomatic masses. To study their natural history, the authors prospectively followed a series of patients with this type of lesion who were unsuited for or refused surgery. METHODS. Twenty-nine patients with 32 masses that measured < 4 cm in greatest dimension (25 solid masses and 7 complex cystic masses) were studied. The primary outcome was tumor size, which was calculated as volume over time. All patients were followed with serial abdominal imaging, and each mass had at least three follow-up measurements. The median follow-up was 27.9 months (range, 5.3-143.0 months). RESULTS. Overall, the average growth rate did not differ statistically from zero growth (P = 0.09; 95% confidence interval, - 0.005-0.2 cm per year) and was not associated with either initial size (P = 0.28) or mass type (P = 0.41). Seven masses (22%) reached 4 cm in greatest dimension after 12-85 months of follow-up. Eight masses (25%) doubled their volumes within 12 months. Overall, 11 masses (34%) fulfilled I of these 2 criteria of rapid growth. Nine tumors were removed surgically after an average of 3.1 years of follow-up because it was believed that they were growing fast. No patient had disease progression. CONCLUSIONS. Approximately one-third of small renal masses that are presumed RCCs grow if they are managed conservatively and are followed with serial imaging. The growth rate is slow or undetectable in the majority of patients. These observations raise the possibility of a period of initial observation in selected patients, particularly the elderly or infirm. (C) 2004 American Cancer Society.

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

4.7
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