The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):408-15. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.001. Epub 2015 Feb 16.
A growing body of retrospective literature is emerging regarding active surveillance (AS) for patients with small renal masses (SRMs). There are limited prospective data evaluating the effectiveness of AS compared to primary intervention (PI).
To determine the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who chose AS for management of their SRM.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 2009 to 2014, the multi-institutional Delayed Intervention and Surveillance for Small Renal Masses (DISSRM) registry prospectively enrolled 497 patients with solid renal masses ≤4.0cm who chose PI or AS.
AS versus PI.
The registry was designed and powered as a noninferiority study based on historic recurrence rates for PI. Analyses were performed in an intention-to-treat manner. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).
Of the 497 patients enrolled, 274 (55%) chose PI and 223 (45%) chose AS, of whom 21 (9%) crossed over to delayed intervention. AS patients were older, had worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores, total comorbidities, and cardiovascular comorbidities, had smaller tumors, and more often had multiple and bilateral lesions. OS for PI and AS was 98% and 96% at 2 yr, and 92% and 75% at 5 yr, respectively (log rank, p=0.06). At 5 yr, CSS was 99% and 100% for PI and AS, respectively (p=0.3). AS was not predictive of OS or CSS in regression modeling with relatively short follow-up.
In a well-selected cohort with up to 5 yr of prospective follow-up, AS was not inferior to PI.
The current report is among the first prospective analyses of patients electing for active surveillance of a small renal mass. Discussion of active surveillance should become part of the standard discussion for management of small renal masses.
越来越多的回顾性文献表明,对于小肾肿瘤 (SRM) 患者,主动监测 (AS) 正在兴起。与初次干预 (PI) 相比,评估 AS 有效性的前瞻性数据有限。
确定选择 AS 治疗 SRM 的患者的特征和临床结局。
设计、地点和参与者:从 2009 年到 2014 年,多机构的延迟干预和小肾肿瘤监测 (DISSRM) 注册处前瞻性地招募了 497 名选择 PI 或 AS 的实体肾肿瘤≤4.0cm 的患者。
AS 与 PI。
该注册处是根据 PI 的历史复发率设计和设定的非劣效性研究。采用意向治疗法进行分析。主要结局是总生存 (OS) 和癌症特异性生存 (CSS)。
在纳入的 497 名患者中,274 名 (55%) 选择了 PI,223 名 (45%) 选择了 AS,其中 21 名 (9%) 转为延迟干预。AS 患者年龄较大,东部合作肿瘤学组评分、总合并症和心血管合并症较差,肿瘤较小,且更多为多发性和双侧病变。PI 和 AS 的 2 年 OS 分别为 98%和 96%,5 年 OS 分别为 92%和 75% (对数秩检验,p=0.06)。5 年时,PI 和 AS 的 CSS 分别为 99%和 100% (p=0.3)。在随访时间相对较短的回归模型中,AS 不能预测 OS 或 CSS。
在一项精心选择的队列中,前瞻性随访时间长达 5 年,AS 并不逊于 PI。
本报告是首批对选择主动监测小肾肿瘤的患者进行前瞻性分析的报告之一。主动监测的讨论应成为小肾肿瘤管理标准讨论的一部分。