83
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Clinical outcome of incidentally discovered small renal cell carcinoma after delayed surgery

, , , , , , , & show all
Pages 85-89 | Published online: 24 May 2013

Abstract

Background

This study was undertaken to investigate the growth rate and clinical outcome of patients with a small renal mass (SRM) after delayed surgery.

Methods

We reviewed the clinical records of 34 patients with SRMs ≤ 4 cm at diagnosis, who underwent delayed surgical intervention during surveillance from January 2000 to December 2011. Radiographic evaluations using computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed at least every 6 months, and the tumor size was determined at least twice.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 26.6 ± 18.6 months and mean tumor doubling time was 23.4 ± 16.0 months. Histopathological analysis revealed that 32 of the 34 patients were malignant in pT1aN0M0. Only one patient showed tumor recurrence, who subsequently died due to tumor progression.

Conclusion

The growth rate of the small renal mass was slow in the majority of our patients. Delayed intervention does not have a detrimental effect on cancer-specific outcomes.

Background

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been increasingly detected using noninvasive abdominal imaging techniques, such as ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Citation15

A retrospective review has revealed that most small renal masses (SRMs) show a slow growth rate and low malignant potential.Citation6Citation8

In this study, the growth rate and natural history of incidentally diagnosed RCC were investigated during prolonged follow-up in 34 patients who decided to postpone surgical treatment.

Methods

Thirty-four patients, each with an incidentally detected SRM ≤ 4 cm, were retrospectively reviewed at three centers from January 2000 to December 2011. All patients were operated on once the tumor growth was noted. They underwent at least two CT scans prior to surgical intervention.

The maximum tumor diameter and tumor volume were calculated at two points, using images yielded by the same diagnostic modality. Tumor volume (V) was calculated using the following equation, assuming the tumor had a spheroidal form:Citation9 V = (4/3 ×π × a × b × [a + b/2]) × 1/8, where a indicates the maximum tumor diameter and b denotes the minimum tumor diameter.

The time to tumor doubling (TTD) was calculated using the following equation,Citation10,Citation11 TTD = (T − T0) × log2/logV − logV0, where T − T0 indicates the interval between the two time measurements and V0 and V denote the tumor volume at T0 and T, respectively.

Clinical and pathological stages were determined using the 2009 American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer Classification of Malignant Tumors (TNM) guidelines.Citation12 Clinical and pathological characteristics that could be associated with tumor growth rates and stages were investigated. After surgery, a follow-up was conducted with the patients every 3–6 months. Patients under hemodialysis (due to end-stage renal disease) were not included in this study as they are at a greater risk of developing RCC than age-matched healthy controls.Citation13Citation15

Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier formulation. Also, data that were statistically significant were compared using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 64.4 years (35–80). There were 26 men and eight women. Twenty-three patients underwent partial nephrectomy. Eleven patients underwent radical nephrectomy. In all patients, the tumors were ≤4 cm at diagnosis. Histopathological analysis revealed that 32 of the 34 patients were malignant in pT1aN0M0.

The mean observation period was 26.2 months (6.5–74.8) and the mean initial tumor volume was 6.2 ± 6.5 cm3 (0.14–30.5). The mean preoperative tumor volume was 12.9 ± 11.9 cm3 (0.7–47.4) and the mean TTD for the entire population was 23.4 months (23.0 months in men, 24.5 months in women, showing no significant difference between sexes). The mean growth rate was 3.9 mm/year ().

Table 1 Preoperative tumor volume and time to tumor doubling in size and growth rate

The pathological results confirmed the diagnosis of RCC for 32 of the 34 patients. 26 tumors (76.5%) were clear cell carcinomas, five (14.7%) were papillary cell carcinomas, two (5.9%) were oncocytomas and one (2.9%) was a multilocular clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Thirteen tumors (40.6%) were of pathological grade 1, 13 (40.6%) were grade 2, four (12.5%) were grade 3, and two (6.3%) were of unknown grade. The mean postoperative follow-up time was 39.7 months (6.3–122.8). Three patients died: one due to RCC, another because of lung cancer, and the third due to pancreatic carcinoma ().

Table 2 Histopathological diagnosis and clinical outcome

In fact, the 5-year overall survival rate (OSR) was 72.6%. The cancer-specific 5-year survival rate (CSSR) was 87.5%. The 5-year cancer recurrence-free rate (CRFR) was 96.2%.

A 72-year-old man died of cancer after an incidence of tumor recurrence. He had undergone an open partial nephrectomy. The histological stage of the RCC was clear cell type, pT1aN0N0 grade2. TTD was 18.3 months. Because local recurrence was found 29 months after the operation, radical nephrectomy was performed, but the patient died due to local recurrence at 54.3 months after the initial operation.

There is no significant difference of TTD according to histopathological grade and subtype. But a strong trend was evident with an almost significant P = 0.068 ().

Table 3 Renal cell carcinoma growth rate

Discussion

A greater number of small, asymptomatic renal tumors are being incidentally detected nowadays. The positive prognosis of incidental RCC is excellent as evidenced by the results of surgery.Citation16,Citation17 Metastasis may occur in 1%–1.4% of patients with small renal cell carcinoma.Citation6,Citation18

Active surveillance is most commonly considered in early prostate cancer, however, recent advances regarding tumor detection tools such as ultrasound and high speed CT scans have made surveillance of RCC possible.Citation18Citation22 Active surveillance is becoming more common, in particular in elderly patients or patients with comorbidities, who may not be candidates for surgery. This approach is based on a retrospective cohort study of the growth rate and natural history of incidentally detected small renal tumors.Citation21Citation23

Factors to be taken into account for SRM treatment involve tumor size at the time of diagnosis as well as tumor proliferation rate; 55% to 60% of SRMs are indolent RCC and 20% to 25% are progressive RCC.Citation24,Citation25 Considering preoperative progression factors, these models allow quantitative detailing of the risks of recurrence, metastasis and survival. However, these tools have several limitations regarding highly qualified treatment decisions in the management of SRMs.Citation23

In general, size is proportionate to the grade of malignancy.Citation26 In which case, when should tumors be treated proactively? How big must they be in diameter? In the case of SRMs smaller than 1.0 cm, 38%–46% are benign. On the other hand for lesions larger than 7.0 cm, only 6.3%–7.1% are benign.Citation27 It has been reported that renal masses ≥ 3 cm in diameter have more aggressive potential, resulting in more metastatic cases.Citation28,Citation29

Moreover, the proliferation rate should also be considered. Renal masses < 2.45 cm at diagnosis were shown to have an average growth rate of 0.13 cm/year, while masses > 2.45 cm had an average growth rate of 0.40 cm/year.Citation22 Larger tumors and larger tumor volumes at diagnosis and at the conclusion of observation, tended to progress. Significant differences in both the average growth rate (0.80 cm/year versus 0.3 cm/year) and the average volumetric growth rate (27.1 cm3/year versus 6.2 cm3/year) have also been observed.Citation30

Generally, local recurrence rates of RCC reportedly vary from 0% to 7%, and disease-specific survival probabilities range from 89% to 100%.Citation31 In our study 34 of 328 patients underwent delayed surgical intervention. In this study, there was no urgency to operate on patients with a TTD of more than 6 months. As a result, one of 34 patients died of local recurrence.

Active surveillance of SRMs offers oncological efficacy equivalent to surgery in the short/intermediate term.Citation32 In our study, although the 5-year OSR was rather low at 72.6%, the 5-year CSSR was 87.5%, and the 5-year CRFR was 96.2%; this was probably because surgery was sufficiently delayed considering the past medical history of each surgical case, although the small number of patients might also have influenced the results. It will be necessary to evaluate a large number of such patients to draw conclusions.

As for the treatment of RCC, if imaging findings suggest a typical malignant tumor or enlargement of the tumor is observed in images showing atypical findings, surgical intervention, such as partial nephrectomy to remove the tumor and preserve renal function, should be recommended to every patient, regardless of age. Finally, appropriate treatment should be decided considering age, past medical history and complications.

In conclusion, because short and intermediate term oncological outcomes of active surveillance for SRMs are the same,Citation32 active surveillance including delayed intervention surgery for small renal cell carcinoma may be considered a useful strategy by more institutions and become a treatment option in the future. However, surgical intervention should be considered in case of tumor growth to more than 3–4 cm or by more than 4–5 mm/year while on active surveillance.Citation29

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • WunderlichHSchumannSJantitzkyVIncrease of renal cell carcinoma incidence in central EuropeEur Urol19983365385419743694
  • ChowWHDevesaSSWarrenJLFraumeniJFJrRising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United StatesJAMA199981171628163110235157
  • HockLMLynchJBalajiKCIncreasing 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 dataJ Urol20021671576011743275
  • LightfootNConlonMKreigerNImpact of noninvasive imaging on increased incidental detection of renal cell carcinomaEur Urol200037552152710765089
  • SiemerSUderMHumkeU[Value of ultrasound in early diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma]Urologe A2000392149153 German [with English abstract]10768225
  • ChawlaSNCrispenPLHanlonALGreenbergREChenDYUzzoRGThe natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literatureJ Urol2006175242543116406965
  • LughezzaniGJeldresCIsbarnHTumor size is a determinant of the rate of stage T1 renal cell cancer synchronous metastasisJ Urol200918241287129319683281
  • CrispenPLViterboRBoorjianSAGreenbergREChenDYUzzoRGNatural history, growth kinetics, and outcomes of untreated clinically localized renal tumors under active surveillanceCancer2009115132844285219402168
  • OzonoSMiyaoNIgarashiTJapanese Society of Renal CancerTumor doubling time of renal cell carcinoma measured by CT: collaboration of Japanese Society of Renal CancerJpn J Clin Oncol2004342828515067101
  • SchwartzMA biomathematical approach to clinical tumor growthCancer1961141272129413909709
  • LindellRMHartmanTESwensenSJFive-year lung cancer screening experience: CT appearance, growth rate, location, and histologic features of 61 lung cancersRadiology2007242255556217255425
  • SobinLHGospodarowiczMKWittekindChTMN Classification of malignant tumours7th edOxford, UKWiley-Blackwell2009
  • VamvakasSBahnerUHeidlandACancer in end-stage renal disease: potential factors involved – editorial-Am J Nephrol199818289959569948
  • ChoykePLAcquired cystic kidney diseaseEur Radiol200010111716172111097395
  • HoraMHesOReischingTTumours in end-stage kidneyTransplantation Proc2008401033543358
  • HafezKSFerganyAFNovickACNephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and TNM stagingJ Urol199916261930193310569540
  • KunkleDAEglestonBLUzzoRGExcise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma – a meta-analysis and reviewJ Urol200817941227123318280512
  • CrispenPLWongYNGreenbergREChenDYUzzoRGPredicting growth of solid renal masses under active surveillanceUrol Oncol200826555555918774473
  • KunkleDACrispenPLChenDYGreenbergREUzzoRGEnhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillanceJ Urol2007177384985317296355
  • HeuerRGillISGuazzoniGA critical analysis of the actual role of minimally invasive surgery and active surveillance for kidney cancerEur Urol201057222323219853989
  • JewettMAMattarKBasiukJActive surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancerEur Urol2011601394421477920
  • MasonRJAbdolellMTrottierGGrowth kinetics of renal masses: analysis of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing active surveillanceEur Urol201159586386721353376
  • KimSPThompsonRHApproach to the small renal mass: to treat or not to treatUrol Clin North Am201239217117922487760
  • RajGVThompsonRHLeibovichBCBluteMLRussoPKattanMWPreoperative nomogram predicting 12-year probability of metastatic renal cancerJ Urol200817962146215118423735
  • KarakiewiczPISuardiNCapitanioUA preoperative prognostic model for patients treated with nephrectomy for renal cell carcinomaEur Urol200955228729518715700
  • SchlomerBFigenshauRSYanYVenkateshRBhayaniSBPathological features of renal neoplasms classified by size and symptomatologyJ Urol20061764 Pt 11317132016952619
  • FrankIBluteMLChevilleJCLohseCMWeaverALZinckeHSolid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor sizeJ Urol20031706 Pt 12217222014634382
  • RemziMOzsoyMKlinglerHCAre small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameterJ Urol2006176389689916890647
  • LaneBRTobertCMRiedingerCBGrowth kinetics and active surveillance for small renal massesCurr Opin Urol201222535335922706068
  • SmaldoneMCKutikovAEqlestonBLSmall renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysisCancer20121184997100621766302
  • LamJSShvartsOPantuckAJChanging concepts in the surgical management of renal cell carcinomaEur Urol200445669270515149740
  • PatelNCranstonDAkhtarMZActive surveillance of small renal masses offers short-term oncological efficacy to radical and partial nephrectomyBJU Int201211091270127522564495