The diffusion of imaging has determined an increased discovery of small renal masses (SRMs). Recent publications have been reviewed to present the state of the art in the management of SRMs and to try to foresee the next steps in this challenging condition.
The role of percutaneous biopsies is expanding, since management algorithms include also active surveillance and ablative therapies. However up to 30% of biopsies fail to provide histological diagnosis and there is the risk of under-evaluating high-grade tumors.
Active surveillance has been proposed in patients with reduced life expectancy and numerous comorbidities. The average growth of SRMs is slow, and metastatic progression has been observed in about 1%. Ablative therapies (cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation) are used in patients with relevant comorbidities or advanced age and unfit for surgery, but who desire active treatment. Compared to conservative surgical treatment both techniques have increased local progression rates, while metastatic progression is relatively low.
Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the recommended curative treatment for SRMs and can be performed open, laparoscopically or robotically. Open PN represents the benchmark, with similar cancer specific survival and better preservation of renal function compared to nephrectomy. Laparoscopy is comparable to open surgery in terms of oncologic results, but a long learning curve is necessary.
Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted PN appear superior to laparoscopy and the learning curve is shorter, but data for oncological results are still immature. With the increasing diffusion of robotic technology it is likely more SRMs will be managed with this approach.
CorcoranA.T., RussoP., LowranceW.T.A review of contemporary data on surgically resected renal masses—benign or malignant?Urology.2013; 81(4): 707–713.
2.
HollingsworthJ.M., MillerD.C., DaignaultS., HollenbeckB.K.. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect.J Natl Cancer Inst.2006; 98(18): 1331–1334.
JemalA., SiegelR., XuJ., WardE.. Cancer statistics, 2010.CA Cancer J Clin.2010; 60(5): 277–300.
5.
KaneC.J., MallinK., RitcheyJ., CooperbergM.R., CarrollP.R.. Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.Cancer.2008; 113(1): 78–83.
6.
FrankI., BluteM.L., ChevilleJ.C., LohseC.M., WeaverA.L., ZinckeH.. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size.J Urol.2003; 170(6 Pt 1): 2217–2220.
7.
ChoudharyS., RajeshA., MayerN.J., MulcahyK.A., HaroonA.. Renal oncocytoma: CT features cannot reliably distinguish oncocytoma from other renal neoplasms.Clin Radiol.2009; 64(5): 517–522.
8.
ChawlaS.N., CrispenP.L., HanlonA.L., GreenbergR.E., ChenD.Y., UzzoR.G.. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature.J Urol.2006; 175(2): 425–431.
9.
Abou YoussifT., KassoufW., SteinbergJ., AprikianA.G., LaplanteM.P., TanguayS.. Active surveillance for selected patients with renal masses: updated results with long-term follow-up.Cancer.2007; 110(5): 1010–1014.
10.
AbouassalyR., LaneB.R., NovickA.C.. Active surveillance of renal masses in elderly patients.J Urol.2008; 180(2): 505–508, discussion 508–509.
11.
CrispenP.L., ViterboR., BoorjianS.A., GreenbergR.E., ChenD.Y., UzzoR.G.. Natural history, growth kinetics, and outcomes of untreated clinically localized renal tumors under active surveillance.Cancer.2009; 115(13): 2844–2852.
MasonR.J., AbdolellM., TrottierG.Growth kinetics of renal masses: analysis of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing active surveillance.Eur Urol.2011; 59(5): 863–867.
14.
JewettM.A., MattarK., BasiukJ.Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer.Eur Urol.2011; 60(1): 39–44.
15.
NguyenM.M., GillI.S.. Effect of renal cancer size on the prevalence of metastasis at diagnosis and mortality.J Urol.2009; 181(3): 1020–1027, discussion 1027.
16.
RothmanJ., EglestonB., WongY.N., IffrigK., LebovitchS., UzzoR.G.. Histopathological characteristics of localized renal cell carcinoma correlate with tumor size: a SEER analysis.J Urol.2009; 181(1): 29–33, discussion 33–34.
17.
ThompsonR.H., KurtaJ.M., KaagM.Tumor size is associated with malignant potential in renal cell carcinoma cases.J Urol.2009; 181(5): 2033–2036.
18.
KatesM., KoretsR., SadeghiN., PierorazioP.M., McKiernanJ.M.. Predictors of locally advanced and metastatic disease in patients with small renal masses.BJU Int.2012; 109(10): 1463–1467.
19.
KinD.Y., WoodC.G., KaramJ.. Treating the two extremes of renal cell carcinoma: management of small renal masses and cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic disease.Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book.2014: e214–21. doi: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2014.34.e214.
20.
PierorazioP.M., JohnsonM.H., BallM.W.Five-year analysis of a multi-institutional prospective clinical trial of delayed intervention and surveillance for small renal masses: the DIS-SRM registry.Eur Urol.2015 Feb 16. pii: S0302–2838(15)00076–7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.001. [Epub ahead of print].
21.
VolpeA., KachuraJ.R., GeddieW.R.Techniques, safety and accuracy of sampling of renal tumors by fine needle aspiration and core biopsy.J Urol.2007; 178(2): 379–386.
VasudevanA., DaviesR.J., ShannonB.A., CohenR.J.. Incidental renal tumours: the frequency of benign lesions and the role of preoperative core biopsy.BJU Int.2006; 97(5): 946–949.
24.
LebretT., PoulainJ.E., MolinieV.Percutaneous core biopsy for renal masses: indications, accuracy and results.J Urol.2007; 178(4 Pt 1): 1184–1188, discussion 1188.
25.
SchmidbauerJ., RemziM., MemarsadeghiM.Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy of renal masses.Eur Urol.2008; 53(5): 1003–1011.
26.
VolpeA., MattarK., FinelliA.Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience.J Urol.2008; 180(6): 2333–2337.
27.
WangR., WolfJ.S.Jr., WoodD.P.Jr., HigginsE.J., HafezK.S.. Accuracy of percutaneous core biopsy in management of small renal masses.Urology.2009; 73(3): 586–590, discussion 590–591.
28.
VeltriA., GarettoI., TosettiI.Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of imaging-guided needle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150 cases.Eur Radiol.2011; 21(2): 393–401.
29.
VolpeA., CadedduJ.A., CestariA.Contemporary management of small renal masses.Eur Urol.2011; 60(3): 501–515.
BallM.W., BezerraS.M., GorinM.A.Grade heterogeneity in small renal masses: potential implications for renal mass biopsy.J Urol.2015; 193(1): 36–40.
32.
CampbellS.C., NovickA.C., BelldegrunA.Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Urological Association. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass.J Urol.2009; 182(4): 1271–1279.
VolpeA., JewettM.A.. The role of surveillance for small renal masses.Nat Clin Pract Urol.2007; 4(1): 2–3.
35.
CrispenP.L., ViterboR., FoxE.B., GreenbergR.E., ChenD.Y., UzzoR.G.. Delayed intervention of sporadic renal masses undergoing active surveillance.Cancer.2008; 112(5): 1051–1057.
36.
Rais-BahramiS., GuzzoT.J., JarrettT.W., KavoussiL.R., AllafM.E.. Incidentally discovered renal masses: oncological and perioperative outcomes in patients with delayed surgical intervention.BJU Int.2009; 103(10): 1355–1358.
37.
BarwariK., WijkstraH., van DeldenO.M., de la RosetteJ.J., LagunaM.P.. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the evaluation of the cryolesion after laparoscopic renal cryoablation: an initial report.J Endourol.2013; 27(4): 402–407.
38.
BandiG., HedicanS., MoonT., LeeF.T., NakadaS.Y.. Comparison of postoperative pain, convalescence, and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and percutaneous ablation of small renal masses.J Endourol.2008; 22(5): 963–967.
39.
MuesA.C., OkhunovZ., HaramisG., D'AgostinoH., ShingletonB.W., LandmanJ.. Comparison of percutaneous and laparoscopic renal cryoablation for small (<3.0 cm) renal masses.J Endourol.2010; 24(7): 1097–1100.
40.
StromK.H., DerweeshI., StroupS.P.Second prize: recurrence rates after percutaneous and laparoscopic renal cryoablation of small renal masses: does the approach make a difference?J Endourol.2011; 25(3): 371–375.
GuazzoniG., CestariA., BuffiN.Oncologic results of laparoscopic renal cryoablation for clinical T1a tumors: 8 years of experience in a single institution.Urology.2010; 76(3): 624–629.
45.
ZagoriaR.J., TraverM.A., WerleD.M., PeriniM., HayasakaS., ClarkP.E.. Oncologic efficacy of CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinomas.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2007; 189(2): 429–436.
46.
TracyC.R., RamanJ.D., DonnallyC., TrimmerC.K., CadedduJ.A.. Durable oncologic outcomes after radiofrequency ablation: experience from treating 243 small renal masses over 7.5 years.Cancer.2010; 116(13): 3135–3142.
47.
del CuraJ.L., ZabalaR., IriarteJl, UndaM.. Treatment of renal tumors by percutaneous ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation using a multitined electrode: effectiveness and complications.Eur Urol.2010; 57(3): 459–465.
48.
JiC., LiX., ZhangS.Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors: 32-month mean follow-up results of 106 patients.Urology.2011; 77(4): 798–802.
49.
KlinglerH.C., MarbergerM., MauermannJ., RemziM., SusaniM.. ‘Skipping’ is still a problem with radiofrequency ablation of small renal tumours.BJU Int.2007; 99(5): 998–1001.
50.
SchmitG.D., ThompsonR.H., KurupA.N.Usefulness of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system for predicting outcomes and complications of percutaneous ablation of 751 renal tumors.J Urol.2013; 189(1): 30–35.
51.
KutikovA., UzzoR.G.. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth.J Urol.2009; 182(3): 844–853.
52.
ThompsonR.H., AtwellT., SchmitG.Comparison of partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation for cT1 renal masses.Eur Urol.2015; 67(2): 252–259.
53.
KutikovA., SmaldoneM.C., UzzoR.G.. Focal therapy for treatment of the small renal mass: dealer's choice or a therapeutic gamble?Eur Urol.2015; 67(2): 260–261.
54.
KunkleD.A., EglestonB.L., UzzoR.G.. Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma—a meta-analysis and review.J Urol.2008; 179(4): 1227–1233, discussion 1233–1234.
CariniM., SelliC., BarbantiG., LapiniA., TuriniD., CostantiniA.. Conservative surgical treatment of renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and reappraisal of indications.J Urol.1988; 140(4): 725–731.
57.
ButlerB.P., NovickA.C., MillerD.P., CampbellS.A., LichtM.R.. Management of small unilateral renal cell carcinomas: radical versus nephron-sparing surgery.Urology.1995; 45(1): 34–40, discussion 40–41.
58.
D'ArmientoM., DamianoR., FeleppaB., PerdonàS., OrianiG., De SioM.. Elective conservative surgery for renal carcinoma versus radical nephrectomy: a prospective study.Br J Urol.1997; 79(1): 15–19.
59.
BeckerF., SiemerS., HumkeU., HackM., ZieglerM., StöckleM.. Elective nephron sparing surgery should become standard treatment for small unilateral renal cell carcinoma: Long-term survival data of 216 patients.Eur Urol.2006; 49(2): 308–313.
60.
PatardJ.J., ShvartsO., LamJ.S.Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based on an international multicenter experience.J Urol.2004; 171(6 Pt 1): 2181–2185, quiz 2435.
61.
GillI.S., KavoussiL.R., LaneB.R.Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors.J Urol.2007; 178(1): 41–46.
62.
CrépelM., JeldresC., SunM.A population-based comparison of cancer-control rates between radical and partial nephrectomy for T1A renal cell carcinoma.Urology.2010; 76(4): 883–888.
63.
Van PoppelH., Da PozzoL., AlbrechtW.A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma.Eur Urol.2011; 59(4): 543–552.
64.
McKiernanJ., SimmonsR., KatzJ., RussoP.. Natural history of chronic renal insufficiency after partial and radical nephrectomy.Urology.2002; 59(6): 816–820.
65.
LauW.K., BluteM.L., WeaverA.L., TorresV.E., ZinckeH.. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney.Mayo Clin Proc.2000; 75(12): 1236–1242.
66.
HuangW.C., LeveyA.S., SerioA.M.Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study.Lancet Oncol.2006; 7(9): 735–740.
67.
MillerD.C., SchonlauM., LitwinM.S., LaiJ., SaigalCS; Urologic Diseases in America Project. Renal and cardiovascular morbidity after partial or radical nephrectomy.Cancer.2008; 112(3): 511–520.
68.
HuangW.C., ElkinE.B., LeveyA.S., JangT.L., RussoP.. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors—is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes?J Urol.2009; 181(1): 55–61, discussion 61–62.
69.
ThompsonR.H., FrankI., LohseC.M.The impact of ischemia time during open nephron sparing surgery on solitary kidneys: a multi-institutional study.J Urol.2007; 177(2): 471–476.
70.
ThompsonR.H., LaneB.R., LohseC.M.Every minute counts when the renal hilum is clamped during partial nephrectomy.Eur Urol.2010; 58(3): 340–345.
71.
Van PoppelH., Da PozzoL., AlbrechtW.European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC); National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG); Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). A prospective randomized EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the complications of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma.Eur Urol.2007; 51(6): 1606–1615.
72.
LaneB.R., GillI.S.. 7-year oncological outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy.J Urol.2010; 183(2): 473–479.
73.
PermpongkosolS., BaggaH.S., RomeroF.R., SrokaM., JarrettT.W., KavoussiL.R.. Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of pathological T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: a 5-year survival rate.J Urol.2006; 176(5): 1984–1988, discussion 1988–1989.
BredaA., StepanianS.V., LiaoJ.Positive margins in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 855 cases: a multi-institutional survey from the United States and Europe.J Urol.2007; 178(1): 47–50, discussion 50.
76.
GongE.M., OrvietoM.A., ZornK.C., LucioniA., SteinbergG.D., ShalhavA.L.. Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T1a renal tumors.J Endourol.2008; 22(5): 953–957.
77.
MatinS.F., GillI.S., WorleyS., NovickA.C.. Outcome of laparoscopic radical and open partial nephrectomy for the sporadic 4 cm. or less renal tumor with a normal contralateral kidney.J Urol.2002; 168(4 Pt 1): 1356–1359, discussion 1359–1360.
78.
MarszalekM., MeixlH., PolajnarM., RauchenwaldM., JeschkeK., MadersbacherS.. Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients.Eur Urol.2009; 55(5): 1171–1178.
79.
SimmonsM.N., GillI.S.. Decreased complications of contemporary laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: use of a standardized reporting system.J Urol.2007; 177(6): 2067–2073, discussion 2073.
80.
PorpigliaF., BertoloR., AmparoreD., FioriC.. Margins, ischaemia and complications rate after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: impact of learning curve and tumour anatomical characteristics.BJU Int.2013; 112(8): 1125–1132.
81.
VolpeA., BluteM.L., FicarraV.Renal Ischemia and Function After Partial Nephrectomy: A Collaborative Review of the Literature.Eur Urol.2015 Feb 19. pii: S0302–2838(15)00068–8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.025. [Epub ahead of print].
82.
PorpigliaF., RenardJ., BilliaM.Is renal warm ischemia over 30 minutes during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy possible? One-year results of a prospective study.Eur Urol.2007; 52(4): 1170–1178.
83.
GillI.S., KamoiK., AronM., DesaiM.M.. 800 Laparoscopic partial nephrectomies: a single surgeon series.J Urol.2010; 183(1): 34–41.
ShaoP., QinC., YinC.Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with segmental renal artery clamping: technique and clinical outcomes.Eur Urol.2011; 59(5): 849–855.
86.
GeorgeA.K., HeratiA.S., SrinivasanA.K.Perioperative outcomes of off-clamp vs complete hilar control laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.BJU Int.2013; 111(4b)(4 Pt B): E235–E241.
87.
PierorazioP.M., PatelH.D., FengT., YohannanJ., HyamsE.S., AllafM.E.. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve.Urology.2011; 78(4): 813–819.
88.
PatelH.D., MullinsJ.K., PierorazioP.M.Trends in renal surgery: robotic technology is associated with increased use of partial nephrectomy.J Urol.2013; 189(4): 1229–1235.
KylloR.L., TanaghoY.S., KaoukJ.H.Prospective multicenter study of oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for pT1 renal cell carcinoma.BMC Urol.2012; 12(1): 11.
91.
KhalifehA., KaoukJ.H., BhayaniS.Positive surgical margins in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis of oncologic outcomes (leave no tumor behind).J Urol.2013; 190(5): 1674–1679.
92.
KhalifehA., AutorinoR., EyraudR.Three-year oncologic and renal functional outcomes after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.Eur Urol.2013; 64(5): 744–750.
93.
DulabonL.M., KaoukJ.H., HaberG.P.Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus non-hilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases.Eur Urol.2011; 59(3): 325–330.
94.
BenwayB.M., BhayaniS.B., RogersC.G.Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: an international experience.Eur Urol.2010; 57(5): 815–820.
FicarraV., MinerviniA., AntonelliA.A multicentre matched-pair analysis comparing robot-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy.BJU Int.2014; 113(6): 936–941.
97.
FroghiS., AhmedK., KhanM.S., DasguptaP., ChallacombeB.. Evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for small renal tumours (T1a).BJU Int.2013; 112(4): E322–E333.
98.
ZhangX., YanJ., RenY., ShenC., YingX., PanS.. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a meta-analysis.Int J Clin Exp Med.2014; 7(12): 4770–4779.
99.
ChoiJ.E., YouJ.H., KimD.K., RhaK.H., LeeS.H.. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Urol.2015; 67(5): 891–901.
SimoneG., GillI.S., MottrieA.Indications, techniques, outcomes, and limitations for minimally ischemic and off-clamp partial nephrectomy: a systematic review of the literature.Eur Urol.2015 Apr 25. pii: S0302-2838(15)00322-X. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.020. [Epub ahead of print].
102.
MirS.A., CadedduJ.A., SleeperJ.P., LotanY.. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy.J Endourol.2011; 25(3): 447–453.
