-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Oncological Outcomes of Active Surveillance versus Surgery or Ablation for Patients with Small Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis
I. Tsuboi, P. Rajwa, R. Campi, M. Miszczyk, T. Fazekas, A. Matsukawa, M. Kardoust Parizi, RJ. Schulz, S. Mancon, A. Cadenar, E. Laukhtina, T. Kawada, S. Katayama, T. Iwata, K. Bekku, K. Wada, PI. Karakiewicz, M. Remzi, M. Araki, SF. Shariat
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, systematický přehled, srovnávací studie, přehledy
- MeSH
- ablace metody MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory ledvin * chirurgie mortalita patologie MeSH
- nefrektomie * metody MeSH
- pozorné vyčkávání * MeSH
- tumor burden MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- systematický přehled MeSH
BACKGROUND AND 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
2nd Department of Urology Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education Warsaw Poland
Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit University of Montreal Health Centre Montreal Canada
Collegium Medicum Faculty of Medicine WSB University Dąbrowa Górnicza Poland
Department of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele Italy
Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine University of Florence Florence Italy
Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czechia
Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
Department of Urology Jikei University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan
Department of Urology Semmelweis University Budapest Hungary
Department of Urology Shariati Hospital Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran
Department of Urology Shimane University Faculty of Medicine Shimane Japan
Department of Urology University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany
Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX USA
Department of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York NY USA
Division of Urology Department of Special Surgery The University of Jordan Amman Jordan
Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health Sechenov University Moscow Russia
Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology Vienna Austria
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25009394
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250429135513.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 250415s2025 ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.euo.2024.10.008 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39455341
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a Tsuboi, Ichiro $u 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
- 245 10
- $a Oncological Outcomes of Active Surveillance versus Surgery or Ablation for Patients with Small Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis / $c I. Tsuboi, P. Rajwa, R. Campi, M. Miszczyk, T. Fazekas, A. Matsukawa, M. Kardoust Parizi, RJ. Schulz, S. Mancon, A. Cadenar, E. Laukhtina, T. Kawada, S. Katayama, T. Iwata, K. Bekku, K. Wada, PI. Karakiewicz, M. Remzi, M. Araki, SF. Shariat
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND AND 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a nádory ledvin $x chirurgie $x mortalita $x patologie $7 D007680
- 650 12
- $a pozorné vyčkávání $7 D057832
- 650 12
- $a nefrektomie $x metody $7 D009392
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 650 _2
- $a ablace $x metody $7 D055011
- 650 _2
- $a tumor burden $7 D047368
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a přehledy $7 D016454
- 700 1_
- $a Rajwa, Pawel $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland
- 700 1_
- $a Campi, Riccardo $u 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
- 700 1_
- $a Miszczyk, Marcin $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Collegium Medicum Faculty of Medicine, WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland
- 700 1_
- $a Fazekas, Tamás $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
- 700 1_
- $a Matsukawa, Akihiro $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Kardoust Parizi, Mehdi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- 700 1_
- $a Schulz, Robert J $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Mancon, Stefano $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
- 700 1_
- $a Cadenar, Anna $u 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
- 700 1_
- $a Laukhtina, Ekaterina $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
- 700 1_
- $a Kawada, Tatsushi $u 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
- 700 1_
- $a Katayama, Satoshi $u 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
- 700 1_
- $a Iwata, Takehiro $u 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
- 700 1_
- $a Bekku, Kensuke $u 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
- 700 1_
- $a Wada, Koichiro $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, Shimane, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Karakiewicz, Pierre I $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada
- 700 1_
- $a Remzi, Mesut $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Araki, Motoo $u Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u 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
- 773 0_
- $w MED00205913 $t European urology oncology $x 2588-9311 $g Roč. 8, č. 2 (2025), s. 544-553
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39455341 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250415 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250429135508 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2311023 $s 1246475
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2025 $b 8 $c 2 $d 544-553 $e 20241024 $i 2588-9311 $m European urology oncology $n Eur Urol Oncol $x MED00205913
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20250415