1 / 1

Introduction

No. 182. Active surveillance for s mall r enal m asses : Outcomes within an Australian outpatient s etting. Dr Gideon A Blecher, Dr Sam S Farah, Prof Mark Frydenberg Department of Urology, Southern Health. Melbourne. Australia. Posters Proudly Supported by: . Introduction

dahlia
Download Presentation

Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. No. 182 Active surveillance for small renal masses: Outcomes within an Australian outpatient setting Dr Gideon A Blecher, Dr Sam S Farah, Prof Mark Frydenberg Department of Urology, Southern Health. Melbourne. Australia Posters Proudly Supported by: Introduction Small renal masses (SRMs) are frequently encountered due to the increasing utilisation of abdominal imaging. The rate of metastases is low and a minority will be benign. Active surveillance (AS) has therefore emerged as a potential management option. • Results • 45 patients presented between August 2004 and March 2010 underwent AS for a SRM • Mean patient age: 67 • 40 incidental, 5 haematuria • Average maximal diameter of 24mm • Intervention • 16 (36%) patients underwent further management • Mean age of patients undergoing intervention: 66 • Intervention included nephrectomy (3), partial nephrectomy (9), and radiofrequency ablation (4).  • Reasons: • had diagnostic biopsy (3) • growth (2), (17mm over 6 month, 3mm over 3 month) • lesion became enhancing (2) • patient choice (1) • not clearly stated (8) • Biopsy • 7 biopsies (15.6% of patients), following mean 8 months of AS • 6 RCC, 1 non-diagnostic • Pathology Outcomes: all negative margins, T1 • 6 Clear Cell RCC • 2 Papillary RCC • 2 Oncocytoma • 1 AML • 1 Leiomyoma • Growth Rates • SRM grew on average 3.5mm per year • Duration of Active Surveillance/NED • Mean 22 month duration (2-90) AS. 32 patients had >6month AS. • 7 patients have had post interventional follow up available. The mean duration of follow up subsequent to intervention is 18 months (5-37). No patients have developed metastatic disease or died from SRM. • Aim • To ascertain: • the growth rate of SRMs • the rate and reasons of cessation of surveillance • the rate of metastases and death from SRM • undergoing AS Methods A retrospective case series of all patients presenting with SRM to an outpatient Urological practice were reviewed. Inclusion criteria: Patients with a SRM, initial size less than 4cm Exclusion criteria: Lesions of initial size > 4cm, hyperdense cyst. Conclusions AS appears to be a safe method of managing patients with SRM. A minority of those undergoing AS will require further investigation (ie: biopsy) or definitive management as a result of growth or patient choice. References Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States.Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, Fraumeni JF Jr. JAMA. 1999 May 5; 281(17):1628-31. Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):425-31. Acknowledgements Thank you to Mr M.Chong for providing some of the initial data

More Related