The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Division of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
J Urol. 2021 May;205(5):1286-1293. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001575. Epub 2020 Dec 24.
A paradigm shift in the management of small renal masses has increased utilization of active surveillance. However, questions remain regarding safety and durability in younger patients.
Patients aged 60 or younger at diagnosis were identified from the Delayed Intervention and Surveillance for Small Renal Masses registry. The active surveillance, primary intervention, and delayed intervention groups were evaluated using ANOVA with Bonferroni correction, χ and Fisher's exact tests, and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Survival outcomes were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.
Of 224 patients with median followup of 4.9 years 30.4% chose surveillance. There were 20 (29.4%) surveillance progression events, including 4 elective crossovers, and 13 (19.1%) patients underwent delayed intervention. Among patients with initial tumor size ≤2 cm, 15.1% crossed over, compared to 33.3% with initial tumor size 2-4 cm. Overall survival was similar in primary intervention and surveillance at 7 years (94.0% vs 90.8%, log-rank p=0.2). Cancer-specific survival remained at 100% for both groups. There were no significant differences between primary and delayed intervention with respect to minimally invasive or nephron-sparing interventions. Recurrence-free survival at 5 years was 96.0% and 100% for primary and delayed intervention, respectively (log-rank p=0.6).
Active surveillance is a safe initial strategy in younger patients and can avoid unnecessary intervention in a subset for whom it is durable. Crucially, no patient developed metastatic disease on surveillance or recurrence after delayed intervention. This study confirms active surveillance principles can effectively be applied to younger patients.
在小肾肿瘤的治疗中,观念发生了转变,越来越多的患者选择主动监测。然而,对于年轻患者,安全性和持久性的问题仍然存在。
从 Delayed Intervention and Surveillance for Small Renal Masses 注册中心确定诊断时年龄在 60 岁或以下的患者。使用 ANOVA 与 Bonferroni 校正、χ 和 Fisher 确切检验、Kruskal-Wallis 和 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验对主动监测、主要干预和延迟干预组进行评估。使用 Kaplan-Meier 方法计算生存结果,并与对数秩检验进行比较。
在中位随访时间为 4.9 年的 224 例患者中,30.4%选择了监测。有 20 例(29.4%)监测进展事件,包括 4 例选择性交叉,13 例(19.1%)患者接受了延迟干预。在初始肿瘤大小≤2cm 的患者中,有 15.1%发生交叉,而初始肿瘤大小为 2-4cm 的患者中有 33.3%发生交叉。在 7 年时,主要干预和监测的总体生存率相似(94.0% vs 90.8%,对数秩 p=0.2)。两组的癌症特异性生存率均为 100%。主要干预和延迟干预在微创或保肾干预方面无显著差异。在 5 年时,主要干预和延迟干预的无复发生存率分别为 96.0%和 100%(对数秩 p=0.6)。
在年轻患者中,主动监测是一种安全的初始策略,可以避免一部分患者的不必要干预,而且监测具有持久性。至关重要的是,在监测或延迟干预后,没有患者发生转移性疾病或复发。本研究证实,主动监测原则可有效地应用于年轻患者。