SpringerLink
Log in

Approach to the small renal mass: Weighing treatment options

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The increased detection of incidental renal masses has introduced new challenges into the management of patients with newly discovered renal masses. Much interest has been focused on the diagnostic accuracy and the prognostic ability of imaging studies. These studies have elucidated trends that can guide management but remain woefully inaccurate for predicting the exceptions to the rule, many of which can produce untoward outcomes. Renal biopsy may aid in the management of patients with indeterminate imaging; however, the role of biomarkers remains unclear. Active surveillance has emerged as an attractive option in certain patient populations, although the lack of reliable predictors of tumor behavior based upon currently available surveillance techniques understandably raises concerns about its propriety. For patients who would benefit from operative management, nephron-sparing procedures such as ablation and partial nephrectomy have gained increasing acceptance as an alternative to radical nephrectomy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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 includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Smith SJ, Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, et al.: Renal cell carcinoma: earlier discovery and increased detection. Radiology 1989, 170:699–703.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schlomer B, Figenshau RS, Yan Y, Bhayani SB: How does the radiographic size of a renal mass compare with the pathologic size? Urology 2006, 68:292–295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hock LM, Lynch J, Balaji KC: 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 2002, 167:57–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chow W, Devesa SS, Warren JL, Fraumeni JF Jr: Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA 1999, 281:1628–1631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Belldegrun A, Tsui K, deKernion JB, Smith RB: Efficacy of nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: analysis based on the new 1997 tumor-node-metastasis staging system. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:2868–2875.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Davidson AJ, Hayes WS, Hartman DS, et al.: Renal oncocytoma and carcinoma: failure of differentiation on CT. Radiology 1993, 186:693–696.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Herr HW, Lee CT, Sharma S, Hilton S: Radiographic versus pathologic size of renal tumors: implications for partial nephrectomy. Urology 2001, 58:157–160.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hafez KS, Fergany AF, Novick AC: Nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence, and TNM staging. J Urol 1999, 162:1930–1933.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mitchell RE, Gilbert SM, Murphy AM, et al.: Partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy offer similar cancer outcomes in renal cortical tumors 4 cm or larger. Urology 2006, 67:260–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Siddiqui SA, Frank I, Leibovich BC, et al.: Impact of tumor size on the predictive ability of the pT3a primary tumor classification for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2007, 177:59–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roberts WM, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, et al.: Pathological stage does not alter the prognosis for renal lesions determined to be stage T1 by computerized tomography. J Urol 2005, 173:713–715.16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gilbert SM, Murphy AM, Katz AE, et al.: Reevaluation of TNM staging of renal cortical tumors: recurrence and survival for T1N0M0 and T3aN0M0 tumors are equivalent. Urology 2006, 68:287–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Siemer S, Lehmann J, Loch A, et al.: Current TNM classification of renal cell carcinoma evaluated: revising stage T3a. J Urol 2005, 173:33–37.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, et al.: Is renal sinus fat invasion the same as perinephric fat invasion for pT3a renal cell carcinoma? J Urol 2005, 174:1218–1221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Han K, Bui MHT, Pantuck AJ, et al.: TNM T3a renal cell carcinoma: adrenal gland involvement is not the same as renal fat invasion. J Urol 2003, 169:899–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schlomer B, Figenshau RS, Yan Y, et al.: Pathological features of renal neoplasms classified by size and symptomatology. J Urol 2006, 176:1317–1320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hsu RM, Chan DY, Siegelman SS: Small renal cell carcinomas: correlation of size with tumor stage, nuclear grade, and histologic subtype. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 182:551–557.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Remzi M, Özsoy M, Klinger H, et al.: Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameter. J Urol 2006, 176:896–899.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Li T, Uzzo R: Tumor size predicts synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma: implications for surveillance of small renal masses. J Urol 2007, 177:1692–1697.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, et al.: The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 2006, 175:425–431.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Abouassaly R, Lane BR, Novick AC: Active surveillance of renal masses in elderly patients. J Urol 2008, 180:505–509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kouba E, Smith A, McRackan D, et al.: Watchful waiting for solid renal masses: insight into the natural history and results of delayed intervention. J Urol 2007, 177:466–470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DYT, et al.: Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol 2007, 177:849–854.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Crispen PL, Uzzo RG: The natural history of untreated renal masses. BJU Int 2007, 99:1203–1207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wehle MJ, Thiel DD, Petrou SP, et al.: Conservative management of incidental contrast-enhancing renal masses as a safe alternative to invasive therapy. Urology 2004, 64:49–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lamb GWA, Bromwich EJ, Vasey P, Aitchison M: Management of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for nephrectomy—natural history, complications, and outcome. Urology 2004, 64:909–913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dechet CB, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, et al.: Prospective analysis of computerized tomography and needle biopsy with permanent sectioning to determine the nature of solid renal masses in adults. J Urol 2003, 169:71–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Silverman SG, Gan YU, Mortele KJ, et al.: Renal masses in the adult patient: the role of percutaneous biopsy. Radiology 2006, 240:6–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith EH: Complications of percutaneous abdominal fineneedle biopsy. Radiology 1991, 178:253–258.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Maturen KE, Ngheim HV, Caoili EM, et al.: Renal mass core biopsy: accuracy and impact on clinical management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 188:563–570.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jaff A, Molinié V, Mellot F, et al.: Evaluation of imagingguided fine-needle percutaneous biopsy of renal masses. Eur Radiol 2005, 15:1721–1726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lebret T, Poulain JE, Molinie V, et al.: Percutaneous core biopsy for renal masses: indications, accuracy, and results. J Urol 2007, 178:1184–1188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, et al.: Renal mass biopsy—a renaissance? J Urol 2008, 179:20–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Strope SA, Wolf JS: Biopsy of the small renal mass: time to shift the clinical paradigm? Urol Oncol 2008, 26:337–338.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bui MHT, Visapaa H, Seligson D, et al.: Prognostic value of carbonic anhydrase IX and Ki67 as predictors of survival for renal clear cell carcinoma. J Urol 2004, 171:2461–2466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Li G, Feng G, Gentol-Perret A, Tostain J: Serum carbonic anhydrase 9 level is associated with postoperative recurrence of conventional renal cell cancer. J Urol 2008, 180:510–514.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tatokoro M, Saito K, Iimura Y, et al.: Prognostic impact of postoperative C-reactive protein level in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy. J Urol 2008, 180:515–519.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Crispen PL, Viterbo R, Fox EB, et al.: Delayed intervention of sporadic renal masses undergoing active surveillance. Cancer 2008, 112:1051–1057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hegarty NJ, Gill IS, Desai MM, et al.: Probe-ablative nephron- sparing surgery: cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation. Urology 2006, 68:7–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lerner SE, Hawkins CA, Blute ML, et al.: Disease outcome in patients with low stage renal cell carcinoma treated with nephron sparing or radical surgery. J Urol 1996, 155:1868–1873.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Senga Y, Ozono S, Nakazawa H, et al.: Surgical outcomes of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a joint study by the Japanese Society of Renal Cancer. Int J Urol 2007, 14:284–288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, et al.: Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 2007, 178:41–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gong EM, Orvieto MA, Zorn KC, et al.: Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T1a renal tumors. J Endourol 2008, 22:953–957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bhayani SB: da Vinci robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: an atlas of the four-arm technique. J Robotic Surg 2008, 1:279–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Aron M, Koenig P, Kaouk JH, et al.: Robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison from a high-volume centre. BJU Int 2008, 102:86–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Deane LA, Lee HJ, Box GN, et al.: Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J Endourol 2008, 22:947–952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG: Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma—a meta-analysis and review. J Urol 2008, 179:1227–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8242, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Sam B. Bhayani

Authors
  1. Brian M. Benway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sam B. Bhayani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sam B. Bhayani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benway, B.M., Bhayani, S.B. Approach to the small renal mass: Weighing treatment options. Curr Urol Rep 10, 11–16 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-009-0004-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-009-0004-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation