Search

Introduction: With the rise in the detection of incidental small renal masses (SRM), the management paradigm for these patients has become an issue of increasing concern. We aim to identify areas of consensus, controversy, and opportunities for improvement among recently published guidelines and assess the strength of evidence for the management of SRMs. Methods: We reviewed practice guidelines for SRMs promulgated by the American Urological Association, European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology. Levels of evidence and strength of recommendations for evaluation, management and follow-up were analyzed with regard to consensus, conflict, and neglect. Results: There is consensus among guidelines for the initial evaluation and treatment of SRMs; however, discrepancies exist with regard to indications for active surveillance, thermal ablation, and timing/method of follow-up after treatment. Routine renal mass biopsy is not recommended by any guideline. Overwhelmingly, guideline statements are based on low to moderate levels of evidence; only 23% of the reviewed guidelines were based on high-level evidence, 38% based on moderate-level, and 39% on low-level evidence or expert opinion. Conclusions: Despite all six guidelines sharing a consensus on most management topics regarding SRMs, the ongoing lack of high-level evidence precludes gold standard recommendations in the areas of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. More high-quality studies are needed to develop a stronger, data-supported universal guideline for the management of SRMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We evaluated our experience of a multidisciplinary approach to renal mass biopsy (RMB) for small renal masses (SRMs) employing in-office ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy by urology (24%), CT, or US biopsy by interventional radiology (IR) (79%), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy by gastroenterology (GI) (4%). Materials and Methods: A single-institution retrospective review of patients who underwent RMB for SRM from May 2013 to August 2019 was conducted. Data regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, biopsy technique, histopathology, and management were collected. Diagnostic rates, concordance with final pathology, complications, and outcomes were analyzed. Results: Of the 192 biopsies reviewed, 63% biopsies were malignant, 20% were benign, and 17% were nondiagnostic. Based on biopsy results, 71 patients (37%) elected active surveillance. Thirty-eight (20%) patients underwent cryoablation, 56 (29%) underwent partial nephrectomy, 14 (7%) underwent radical nephrectomy, and the remaining patients were treated elsewhere. The rate of surgery for benign pathology after pretreatment RMB was 3%. The concordance rate between biopsy and final pathology was 99% for malignancy, 96% for specific pathology subtype, and 85% for renal cell carcinoma grade. Median time from diagnosis to definitive treatment was 97 days (urology: 76, IR: 110 and GI: 54, p = 0.002). Three (1.6%) Clavien I complications were reported. Conclusion: Our multidisciplinary approach to RMB for clinical stage T1a demonstrated favorable safety and diagnostic rates, which effectively directed management strategies and minimized surgery for benign disease. Urologist-performed office biopsies significantly shortened the time from diagnosis to definitive treatment. Our experience with GI EUS biopsy has demonstrated feasibility and safety for tumors that were otherwise not accessible percutaneously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]