Oncological Outcomes of Active Surveillance versus Surgery or Ablation for Patients with Small Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis.

Ablation therapy Active surveillance Partial nephrectomy Radical nephrectomy Small renal mass

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 13 07 2024
revised: 29 09 2024
accepted: 10 10 2024
medline: 26 10 2024
pubmed: 26 10 2024
entrez: 25 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

While active surveillance (AS) is an alternative to surgical interventions in patients with small renal masses (SRMs), evidence regarding its oncological efficacy is still debated. We aimed to evaluate oncological outcomes for patients with SRMs who underwent AS in comparison to surgical interventions. In April 2024, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were queried for comparative studies evaluating AS in patients with SRMs (PROSPERO: CRD42024530299). The primary outcomes were overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). A random-effects model was used for quantitative analysis. We identified eight eligible studies (three prospective, four retrospective, and one study based on Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results [SEER] data) involving 4947 patients. Pooling of data with the SEER data set revealed significantly higher OS rates for patients receiving surgical interventions (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73; p = 0.007), especially partial nephrectomy (PN; HR 0.62; p < 0.001). However, in a sensitivity analysis excluding the SEER data set there was no significant difference in OS between AS and surgical interventions overall (HR 0.84; p = 0.3), but the PN subgroup had longer OS than the AS group (HR 0.6; p = 0.002). Only the study based on the SEER data set showed a significant difference in CSS. The main limitations include selection bias in retrospective studies, and classification of interventions in the SEER database study. Patients treated with AS had similar OS to those who underwent surgery or ablation, although caution is needed in interpreting the data owing to the potential for selection bias and variability in AS protocols. Our review reinforces the need for personalized shared decision-making to identify patients with SRMs who are most likely to benefit from AS. For well-selected patients with a small kidney mass suspicious for cancer, active surveillance seems to be a safe alternative to surgery, with similar overall survival. However, the evidence is still limited and more studies are needed to help in identifying the best candidates for active surveillance.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
While active surveillance (AS) is an alternative to surgical interventions in patients with small renal masses (SRMs), evidence regarding its oncological efficacy is still debated. We aimed to evaluate oncological outcomes for patients with SRMs who underwent AS in comparison to surgical interventions.
METHODS METHODS
In April 2024, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were queried for comparative studies evaluating AS in patients with SRMs (PROSPERO: CRD42024530299). The primary outcomes were overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). A random-effects model was used for quantitative analysis.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
We identified eight eligible studies (three prospective, four retrospective, and one study based on Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results [SEER] data) involving 4947 patients. Pooling of data with the SEER data set revealed significantly higher OS rates for patients receiving surgical interventions (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73; p = 0.007), especially partial nephrectomy (PN; HR 0.62; p < 0.001). However, in a sensitivity analysis excluding the SEER data set there was no significant difference in OS between AS and surgical interventions overall (HR 0.84; p = 0.3), but the PN subgroup had longer OS than the AS group (HR 0.6; p = 0.002). Only the study based on the SEER data set showed a significant difference in CSS. The main limitations include selection bias in retrospective studies, and classification of interventions in the SEER database study.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Patients treated with AS had similar OS to those who underwent surgery or ablation, although caution is needed in interpreting the data owing to the potential for selection bias and variability in AS protocols. Our review reinforces the need for personalized shared decision-making to identify patients with SRMs who are most likely to benefit from AS.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
For well-selected patients with a small kidney mass suspicious for cancer, active surveillance seems to be a safe alternative to surgery, with similar overall survival. However, the evidence is still limited and more studies are needed to help in identifying the best candidates for active surveillance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39455341
pii: S2588-9311(24)00236-0
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.10.008
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Ichiro Tsuboi (I)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, Shimane, Japan; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.

Pawel Rajwa (P)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.

Riccardo Campi (R)

Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Marcin Miszczyk (M)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Collegium Medicum Faculty of Medicine, WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland.

Tamás Fazekas (T)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.

Akihiro Matsukawa (A)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Mehdi Kardoust Parizi (M)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Robert J Schulz (RJ)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Stefano Mancon (S)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.

Anna Cadenar (A)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Unit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Ekaterina Laukhtina (E)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.

Tatsushi Kawada (T)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.

Satoshi Katayama (S)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.

Takehiro Iwata (T)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.

Kensuke Bekku (K)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.

Koichiro Wada (K)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, Shimane, Japan.

Pierre I Karakiewicz (PI)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.

Mesut Remzi (M)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Motoo Araki (M)

Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary; Research Center for Evidence Medicine, Urology Department, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. Electronic address: shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at.

Classifications MeSH