Growth Kinetics of Renal Masses: Analysis of a Prospective Cohort of Patients Undergoing Active Surveillance

Pathological Grade and Gender are Predictors of Small Renal Cell Carcinoma Growth

“…Moreover, the proliferation rate should also be considered. Renal masses <2.45 cm at diagnosis were associated with an average growth rate of 0.13 cm/year, while masses >2.45 cm had a growth rate of 0.40 cm/year [24]. Following the diagnosis and conclusion of the observation, larger tumors and larger tumor volumes tended to progress.…”

“…However, recent advances with respect to tumor detection tools, such as ultrasound and high speed CT scanning, have made for the possibility of RCC surveillance [26][27][28][29][30]. Active surveillance is increasing in frequency, especially with elderly patients or patients with comorbidities who may not be viable surgery candidates.…”

“…Active surveillance is increasing in frequency, especially with elderly patients or patients with comorbidities who may not be viable surgery candidates. This approach is based on retrospective cohort study of the growth rate and natural history of incidentally detected small renal tumors [29][30][31].…”

Management of Kidney Cancer: Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum

“…23,24 This is widely practiced for the aforementioned patient population, but reliable prognostic factors for progression to metastatic disease are not presently defined which makes this approach unsafe for the younger and fit patients.…”

Handling patients with growing small renal masses

“…In a previous study involving this dataset, the authors demonstrated that growth rate was also not affected by biopsy proof of malignancy and that progression to metastasis occurred in only 1.1% of patients. 2 This current study has its limitations, including radiological follow-up using different imaging modalities (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography), which can provide subtle measurement differences when compared, a lack of central radiological review, the use of maximum diameter instead of tumour volume and the absence of precise tumour location (exophytic vs. endophytic or sinus based). Yet, despite these limitations, an important message can be gleaned.…”