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

IF 8.3 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Ichiro Tsuboi, Pawel Rajwa, Riccardo Campi, Marcin Miszczyk, Tamás Fazekas, Akihiro Matsukawa, Mehdi Kardoust Parizi, Robert J Schulz, Stefano Mancon, Anna Cadenar, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Tatsushi Kawada, Satoshi Katayama, Takehiro Iwata, Kensuke Bekku, Koichiro Wada, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Mesut Remzi, Motoo Araki, Shahrokh F Shariat
{"title":"Oncological Outcomes of Active Surveillance versus Surgery or Ablation for Patients with Small Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis.","authors":"Ichiro Tsuboi, Pawel Rajwa, Riccardo Campi, Marcin Miszczyk, Tamás Fazekas, Akihiro Matsukawa, Mehdi Kardoust Parizi, Robert J Schulz, Stefano Mancon, Anna Cadenar, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Tatsushi Kawada, Satoshi Katayama, Takehiro Iwata, Kensuke Bekku, Koichiro Wada, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Mesut Remzi, Motoo Araki, Shahrokh F Shariat","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.10.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Patient summary: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.10.008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

对肾脏小肿块患者进行主动监测与手术或消融治疗的肿瘤学结果:系统回顾与定量分析
背景和目的:虽然主动监测(AS)是小肾肿块(SRMs)患者手术治疗的替代方案,但有关其肿瘤学疗效的证据仍存在争议。我们的目的是评估接受主动监测和手术治疗的 SRM 患者的肿瘤治疗效果:2024年4月,我们在PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science上查询了评估SRM患者接受AS的比较研究(PROSPERO:CRD42024530299)。主要结果为总生存期(OS)和癌症特异性生存期(CSS)。定量分析采用随机效应模型:我们确定了 8 项符合条件的研究(3 项前瞻性研究、4 项回顾性研究和 1 项基于监测、流行病学和最终结果 [SEER] 数据的研究),涉及 4947 名患者。与SEER数据集的数据汇总显示,接受手术干预的患者的OS率明显更高(危险比[HR] 0.73;P = 0.007),尤其是肾部分切除术(PN;HR 0.62;P 结论和临床意义:接受强直性脊柱炎治疗的患者与接受手术或消融治疗的患者的OS相似,但由于强直性脊柱炎治疗方案可能存在选择偏差和变异,因此在解释数据时需要谨慎。我们的综述强调了个性化共同决策的必要性,以确定最有可能从 AS 中获益的 SRM 患者:患者总结:对于经过精挑细选的肾脏小肿块疑似癌症患者,积极监测似乎是一种安全的手术替代方案,其总生存率与手术相似。然而,证据仍然有限,需要更多的研究来帮助确定接受主动监测的最佳人选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
128
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Journal Name: European Urology Oncology Affiliation: Official Journal of the European Association of Urology Focus: First official publication of the EAU fully devoted to the study of genitourinary malignancies Aims to deliver high-quality research Content: Includes original articles, opinion piece editorials, and invited reviews Covers clinical, basic, and translational research Publication Frequency: Six times a year in electronic format
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信