Log in

Epidemiologie und Diagnostik kleiner Nierentumoren

Epidemiology and diagnostic assessment of small renal masses

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Inzidenz kleiner Nierentumoren bei asymptomatischen Patienten hat signifikant zugenommen. Diese Entwicklung ist neben den verbesserten zur Verfügung stehenden Therapieoptionen dafür mitverantwortlich, dass die Mortalität von Nierenzellkarzinomen insgesamt abnimmt, da die kleinen Nierenraumforderungen („small renal masses“, SRM) eine gute Prognose besitzen und zu einem höheren Anteil sich als histologisch niedrig maligne herausstellen. Daher ist eine adäquate Diagnostik zur weiteren Therapieplanung entscheidend.

Fragestellung

Dieser Beitrag stellt die klinische Relevanz kleiner Nierenraumforderungen anhand der Darstellung ihrer Epidemiologie sowie die verschiedenen diagnostischen Möglichkeiten zur Einstufung von SRM dar.

Material und Methoden

Es werden offizielle Statistiken, Basisliteratur und Leitlinienempfehlungen herangezogen.

Ergebnisse

Der Zunahme der Inzidenz kleiner Nierenraumforderungen in den letzten Jahrzehnten liegt der vermehrte Einsatz bildgebender Verfahren zugrunde wie Computertomographie (CT), Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) und Sonographie. Kontrastmittelverstärktes CT (CECT) und kontrastmittelgestützter Ultraschall (CEUS, „contrast-enhanced ultrasound“) besitzen eine exzellente Sensitivität in der Charakterisierung von SRM, die MRT besitzt eine sehr gute Spezifität. Vor allem komplexe zystische Raumforderungen können gut anhand der CEUS beurteilt werden.

Schlussfolgerungen

Dank der bildgebenden Möglichkeiten können im frühen noch asymptomatischen Stadium bereits Therapien angeboten werden. Andererseits birgt diese Entwicklung auch die Gefahr einer Übertherapie. Somit sollte eine Operation v. a. bei älteren Patienten zunächst gründlich bedacht werden und in Abhängigkeit vom Alter und des Zustands auch eine „active surveillance“ in Betracht gezogen werden.

Abstract

Background

The incidence of small renal masses has been rising over the last few decades. At the same time, mortality of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is decreasing. These trends can be explained by the availability of improved therapeutic measures and the good prognosis of small renal masses (SRM) turning out to be histopathologically benign or of low malignancy in many cases.

Objectives

The aim of this article is to present epidemiology and diagnostic assessment of SRM.

Materials and methods

Statistics, basic research, guidelines.

Results

The incidence of SRM is rising due to the widespread use of imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Sensitivity is excellent for CEUS and for CECT in the characterization of SRM, while good specificity values can be reached by MRI. For characterization of complex cystic renal masses, CEUS has good diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions

Due to improved diagnostic possibilities, SRMs can be diagnosed in early asymptomatic stages. As SRM have a good prognosis and often are of low malignancy therapy, options should be carefully considered; especially in older patients, active surveillance should considered.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Znaor A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Laversanne M et al (2015) International variations and trends in renal cell carcinoma incidence and mortality. Eur Urol 67:519–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB et al (2000) Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumors. J Urol 163:426–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Luciani LG, Cestari R, Tallarigo C (2000) Incidental renal cell carcinoma-age and stage characterization and clinical implications: study of 1092 patients (1982–1997). Urology 56:58–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kurban LAS, Vosough A, Jacob P et al (2017) Pathological nature of renal tumors – does size matter? Urol Ann 9:330–334

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC et al (2010) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 58:398–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lindblad P (2004) Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Scand J Surg 93:88–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hock LM, Lynch J, Balaji KC (2002) Increasing incidence of all stages of kidney cancer in the last 2 decades in the United States: an analysis of surveillance, epidemiology and end results program data. J Urol 167:57–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49:1374–1403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Levi F, Ferlay J, Galeone C et al (2008) The changing pattern of kidney cancer incidence and mortality in Europe. BJU Int 101:949–958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Patard JJ, Rodriguez A, Rioux-Leclercq N et al (2002) Prognostic significance of the mode of detection in renal tumours. BJU Int 90:358–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kato M, Suzuki T, Suzuki Y et al (2004) Natural history of small renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of growth rate, histological grade, cell proliferation and apoptosis. J Urol 172:863–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170:2217–2220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Clague J, Lin J, Cassidy A et al (2009) Family history and risk of renal cell carcinoma: results from a case-control study and systematic meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18:801–807

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee CT, Katz J, Fearn PA et al (2002) Mode of presentation of renal cell carcinoma provides prognostic information. Urol Oncol 7:135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Patard JJ, Leray E, Rodriguez A et al (2003) Correlation between symptom graduation, tumor characteristics and survival in renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 44:226–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Novara G, Ficarra V, Antonelli A et al (2010) Validation of the 2009 TNM version in a large multi-institutional cohort of patients treated for renal cell carcinoma: are further improvements needed? Eur Urol 58:588–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jayson M, Sanders H (1998) Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology 51:203–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schachter LR, Cookson MS, Chang SS et al (2007) Second prize: frequency of benign renal cortical tumors and histologic subtypes based on size in a contemporary series: what to tell our patients. J Endourol 21:819–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheth S, Scatarige JC, Horton KM et al (2001) Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma: role of multidetector ct and three-dimensional CT. Radiographics 21(Spec No):S237–S254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim SH, Kim CS, Kim MJ et al (2016) Differentiation of clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other subtypes and fat-poor angiomyolipoma by use of quantitative enhancement measurement during three-phase MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:W21–W28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Choi SK, Jeon SH, Chang SG (2012) Characterization of small renal masses less than 4 cm with quadriphasic multidetector helical computed tomography: differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. Korean J Urol 53:159–164

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sasiwimonphan K, Takahashi N, Leibovich BC et al (2012) Small (<4 cm) renal mass: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma utilizing MR imaging. Radiology 263:160–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim JH, Bae JH, Lee KW et al (2012) Predicting the histology of small renal masses using preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 80:872–876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen L, Wang L, Diao X et al (2015) The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating small renal carcinoma and angiomyolipoma. Biosci Trends 9:252–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Volpe A, Finelli A, Gill IS et al (2012) Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours. Eur Urol 62:491–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB et al (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol 69:660–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. K. Ziegelmüller.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

B.K. Ziegelmüller, A. Spek, B. Szabados, J. Casuscelli, D.-A. Clevert und M. Staehler geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ziegelmüller, B.K., Spek, A., Szabados, B. et al. Epidemiologie und Diagnostik kleiner Nierentumoren. Urologe 57, 274–279 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0585-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0585-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation