Review

Nature Clinical Practice Urology (2005) 2, 384-390
doi:10.1038/ncpuro0254  
Received 19 March 2005 | Accepted 4 July 2005

The natural history of small renal masses

Alessandro Volpe and Michael AS Jewett*  About the authors

Correspondence *Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3–124, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4

Email m.jewett@utoronto.ca

Summary

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma is increasing, in part due to the growing use of cross-sectional imaging. Most renal tumors are now incidentally detected as small masses in asymptomatic patients. A minority of small renal masses, presumed to be renal cell carcinoma, grow significantly over time if managed conservatively, but the growth rate of the majority is slow or undetectable. In the absence of other prognostic factors, measurement of tumor growth rate can be helpful for initial conservative management of selected patients with small renal tumors. To date, there have been no reports of progression to metastatic disease occurring during active surveillance, but longer follow-up is needed to confirm this observation. The standard of care for small localized renal neoplasms is partial or radical nephrectomy. At the present time, active surveillance of small renal masses, with delayed therapy for patients whose disease progresses, is an experimental approach that can be considered for the elderly or patients with significant comorbidity. Renal core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration can provide essential information for treatment decision-making and should therefore be considered in the diagnostic work-up of all small renal masses. In future, the identification of prognostic indicators, with the use of new techniques including functional imaging and molecular or genomic characterization of tissue from needle biopsies, are expected to help clinicians differentiate between indolent and potentially aggressive small renal tumors.

Review criteria

PubMed and MEDLINE were searched for records from January 1991 to January 2005, using the terms "renal masses" and "renal tumors". Of the citations identified by the searches, papers were selected on the basis of their clinical relevance with respect to the natural history of small renal masses. Only paperspublished in English have been cited in this review.

Keywords:

follow-up studies, kidney cancer, natural history, renal-cell carcinoma, surveillance

Top

Introduction

Malignant tumors of the kidney are responsible for about 2% of cancer incidence and mortality in the US, with an estimated 36,160 new cases and 12,660 deaths in 2005.1 There has been an increase of 126% in the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the US since 1950.2 This rising trend has been observed worldwide and is partially due to the growing use of new and improved noninvasive abdominal imaging modalities, such as ultrasonography, CT and MRI.2, 3, 4, 5

The increasing incidence of RCC has occurred across all clinical stages, but the greatest increase has been observed in the incidence of localized tumors, with an average annual increase of 3.7% from 1973 to 1998 in the US.3, 4 In more recent years, 48 to 66% of RCCs have been detected incidentally as SMALL RENAL MASSES in asymptomatic patients, whereas historically most cases were diagnosed following investigations for flank pain or hematuria.6, 7, 8 Tumor size at diagnosis has also decreased substantially over time. The Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center reported a drop in the mean size of resected renal tumors from a maximum diameter of 7.8 cm to 5.3 cm between 1989 and 1998.9

The largest increase in incidentally detected renal tumors has occurred among patients aged 70–89 years, presumably because these individuals are more likely to undergo radiologic examination for other medical issues.3

There are numerous reports suggesting that incidentally detected lesions are, on average, smaller and present at an earlier stage than those detected in symptomatic patients.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Compared to symptomatic renal masses, small asymptomatic masses are more frequently benign and those confirmed as RCCs are, on average, lower grade.5, 7, 14, 15, 16 Frank et al. reviewed the pathology of 2,935 renal tumors at the Mayo Clinic. They observed that as tumor size decreases there is a significant increase in the likelihood of a benign histology, a papillary compared to a clear-cell histology and a low-grade compared to a high-grade malignancy. In their experience, 30% of tumors below 4 cm in their maximum dimension were benign and over 87% of those diagnosed as clear-cell RCCs were low-grade tumors.15

Finally, several authors have reported that small incidentally detected tumors are associated with better survival outcomes.5, 11, 12, 14, 17 The 5-year disease-free survival rate for incidental renal tumors of <4 cm treated with radical or partial nephrectomy is 95–100%.9, 10 Bell was the first author to report an association between renal tumor size and prognosis, when he noted an increased rate of metastases in patients found to have RCCs >3 cm in maximum dimension at autopsy compared to those with RCCs of less than or equal to3 cm.18 Tumor size is a key component of the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system and remains the most important prognostic factor for RCC.

Top

Natural history Of small renal masses

The NATURAL HISTORY of small renal masses has not been extensively studied because most tumors are surgically removed soon after diagnosis; however, Table 1 lists the outcomes of some studies which have examined ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE of small renal masses.

Table 1 Outcomes of studies examining active surveillance of small renal masses.
Table 1 - Outcomes of studies examining active surveillance of small renal masses.
Full tableFigures & Tables indexDownload PowerPoint slide (268K)

In the landmark report of surveillance of kidney tumors, Bosniak et al. retrospectively reviewed the imaging of 40 incidentally detected <3.5 cm renal masses that had been followed up for a mean of 3.25 years (range 1.75–8.5 years). Of 26 tumors that were eventually removed after an average of 3.8 years (range 1.8–8.5 years), 22 (84.6%) were histologically confirmed as RCC. Variable tumor growth rates were observed, but the overall mean linear growth rate for all tumors was 0.36 cm/year (0–1.1 cm/year). Nineteen tumors grew at a rate of <0.35 cm/year and no patient developed metastatic disease.19 More recently, Oda et al. observed 16 patients with incidentally diagnosed and histologically proven localized RCC. The tumor growth rate varied from 0.10 to 1.35 cm/year and was significantly lower than that of metastatic RCC lesions.20

In the first prospective study of watchful waiting for renal tumors, we reported a series of 13 patients incidentally diagnosed with a small <4 cm renal mass and followed expectantly because they were elderly or unfit for surgery. We hypothesized that the tumors that are destined to grow fast, and possibly metastasize, do so early, while most small tumors grow at a slow rate or not at all.21 We have subsequently reported the results of active surveillance of an expanded series of 32 renal masses in 29 patients. Of the 32 masses, 25 were solid masses and 7 were complex cysts (four were BOSNIAK CATEGORY III RENAL LESIONs and three were BOSNIAK CATEGORY IV RENAL LESIONs). The patients were prospectively followed up with serial abdominal imaging for a mean of 27.9 months (range 5.3–143 months), with at least three follow-up measurements carried out on each mass. Tumor volume, in addition to single and bidimensional diameters, was calculated from each follow-up image or report. After an average of 38 months of follow-up, nine masses in eight patients were surgically removed either because of the surgeon's concern or the patient's anxiety that the tumor was enlarging. All tumors were clear-cell RCCs, with the exception of one oncocytoma. The overall average growth rate was low and showed no correlation with either initial size or mass type. Seven masses (22%) reached 4 cm in diameter after 12 to 85 months of follow-up and eight (25%) doubled their volume within 12 months. Overall, 11 (34%) fulfilled one of these two criteria of rapid growth. No patient progressed to metastatic disease; two patients died of unrelated causes.22

Kassouf et al., who serially imaged 24 patients with small renal masses, have since reported a similar experience. Most of the tumors demonstrated no significant growth during the surveillance period and no metastases were documented, with a mean follow-up of 31.6 months.23

In another study, 29 small, incidentally detected, contrast-enhancing renal masses were followed with serial CT imaging. In 15 patients no tumor growth occurred during follow-up. Six patients were eventually treated for significant tumor growth or at the request of the patient. Pathology was obtained in five cases (four RCCs and one oncocytoma). No patients died of RCC or developed metastatic disease.24

Kato et al. reported on the natural history of 18 incidentally detected and histologically proven RCCs that were surgically removed after a median observation period of 22.5 months. The average annual growth rate was 0.42 cm, and FUHRMAN GRADE III tumors, which comprised 17% of the series, grew faster than FUHRMAN GRADE I–II tumors. The authors found a significant correlation between tumor growth rate and apoptotic activity measured with the TUNEL technique, but no correlation between tumor growth rate and proliferative activity measured by Ki-67 immunostaining.25 Interestingly, Lamb et al. also observed a slow growth rate in larger renal tumors. They followed a series of 36 renal masses with an average size of 7.2 cm at diagnosis, in patients who were considered unsuitable for surgery or were unwilling to have surgery. Two-thirds of the masses were biopsied and the diagnosis of RCC was confirmed in all cases except one. The authors observed a growth rate of 0.0–1.76 cm/year, with 55% of patients showing no increase in tumor size. Only one patient, who had a high-grade tumor at biopsy, eventually developed metastases 132 months after the initial diagnosis.26

The studies on active surveillance that have been published to date are mostly retrospective, have a relatively short follow-up period and include a limited number of patients. Their results are consistent, however, and clearly suggest that a large proportion of incidentally detected small renal masses have a slow growth rate and an indolent clinical behavior, if managed conservatively. Rare cases of small renal tumors presenting with distant metastases at diagnosis have been described in the literature, but, to date, we are unaware of a case in which a small renal mass that was either presumed or proven to be RCC has metastasized during the surveillance period.27

Compared to the large increase in the detected incidence of RCC in recent years, the mortality rate of RCC has increased only modestly. This could be due to a lead-time bias, or might further support the theory that many small renal tumors have a long natural history and are not destined to progress, while those likely to do so are probably resected too late despite their localized radiographic appearance.1, 2, 3, 4, 28 Furthermore, reports from autopsy series performed before the widespread use of imaging show that 67–74% of RCCs remained undetected until death and that only 8.9–20% of undiagnosed RCCs were eventually responsible for the patient's death.29, 30

The watchful-waiting series described above comprised mostly elderly patients. This population may not be entirely representative of all patients presenting with a small renal mass. The biology of small renal tumors may differ in younger patients. A report from the Mayo Clinic observed that patients aged 18–40 years were more likely to have chromophobe than clear-cell RCCs when compared to patients that are 60–70 years old. The tumors in the younger group were also more likely to be cystic and to present at a lower stage, all features that have been shown to be associated with a favorable prognosis.31

Top

Imaging and biopsy of small renal masses

Measurement error at imaging is a key concern in the management of patients with small renal tumors. Accurate edge detection of an irregular mass at imaging can be difficult, particularly in the presence of features such as hemorrhage, pyelonephritis, cysts or dilated calices adjacent to the tumor, multiple cysts within the kidney and localization near or invasion of the collecting system.32 We have performed a study of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT measurement of small renal masses, comparing volumes estimated on imaging with postoperative volumes. Although it is well known that differences between these measurements can occur as a result of decreased kidney and tumor blood volume in the surgical specimen caused by initial ligation of the arterial blood supply, we have demonstrated that measurement of the dimensions of a renal tumor based on CT scans and MRI offers an accurate means of assessing tumor growth.33

Renal masses with cystic components present a special problem because their growth rate can be easily overestimated or underestimated if the volume of cystic fluid grows at a different rate to the tumor cell volume. Some authors have observed that the prognosis for patients with cystic RCC is better than that for patients with solid tumors, but, as the tumors were all managed by surgery, these reports do not give us information about the natural history of this type of tumor.34, 35 In our experience, complex cystic renal masses have a comparable growth rate to that of solid tumors.22

Historically, needle-core biopsies of renal masses have been recommended to rule out the presence of metastatic disease to the kidney, renal abscess or lymphoma and to confirm the diagnosis of a renal-cell primary tumor in patients with disseminated metastases or unresectable tumors. Beyond these indications, renal needle biopsies have not been widely performed in North America because of concerns about complications, tumor seeding and sampling errors. However, the techniques and results of needle biopsy of renal masses under imaging guidance have significantly improved over time and the associated risks have significantly decreased. Fine-needle aspiration and core biopsy of renal masses now appear to be safe and can be performed in an outpatient setting with a low morbidity rate.36, 37, 38 A high degree of accuracy can now be achieved, both in obtaining tissue and interpreting it with routine pathologic techniques. The sensitivity and specificity of renal tumor biopsy reported in the literature are 70–92% and 100% respectively, with accuracy close to 90%.39

Neuzillet et al. reported the results of helical CT-guided percutaneous fine-needle biopsy on 88 consecutive patients with solid, small (<4 cm in maximum dimension) renal masses. Adequate material for histologic examination was obtained from 96.6% of the patients. In 5.6% of cases pathology revealed only fibrosis and was considered inconclusive; 15.9% of the masses were found to be benign. Following diagnosis of RCC at biopsy, 62 patients underwent radical or partial nephrectomy. The sensitivity of the biopsy was 92% for diagnosis of malignancy and tumor subtype. There was a weaker correlation between the Fuhrman grade, as determined by biopsy, and the final tumor grade (70%); however, no tumor was erroneously graded by more than one point. There were no false-positive results and no significant postbiopsy complications or track seeding were reported.38 One of the major concerns with needle-core biopsies of renal tumors is the risk of misdiagnosing or undergrading tumors as a result of histologic heterogeneity. We recently reviewed our personal experience and observed that intratumoral heterogeneity does not represent a significant issue in small renal tumors (A Evans, A Saravannan, A Volpe and MA Jewett, unpublished data).

On the basis of their results, Neuzillet et al. advocate the routine use of needle biopsies to better characterize the histology of small renal masses before surgical or conservative treatment. We believe that all patients who are incidentally diagnosed with a small renal mass should undergo a biopsy before being enrolled in an active-surveillance protocol.

Top

Management of small renal masses

Surgery and minimally invasive treatment

The standard of care for small localized renal neoplasms is partial or radical nephrectomy.40, 41 The rationale for treatment at diagnosis is that TUMOR PROGRESSION will be less likely and survival will improve. Nephron-sparing surgery is increasingly favored as an alternative to radical nephrectomy for the removal of smaller RCCs, given its comparable cancer-control rate and reduced impact on renal function.9, 42 Partial nephrectomy is widely performed, but usually as an open procedure. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is technically challenging, but is already emerging as a preferable approach to open partial nephrectomy, especially in centers with expertise.43 Until advanced laparoscopy is more widely available, there is potential for overtreatment of small renal masses by laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in patients who express an interest in less-invasive therapy and wish to avoid open procedures.

A significant percentage of benign tumors are now being reported at final pathologic examination in most surgical series of small renal masses. At the John Hopkins Medical Institution 33.6% of 217 renal masses that were removed by laparoscopic partial nephrectomy between January 1999 and March 2004 were found to be benign after surgery.44 Gill et al. also reported histologically benign tumors in 30 of 100 patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy at the Cleveland Clinic.43

Although morbidity from nephrectomy has decreased with the advent of improved surgical techniques, it is still reported to occur in 11–40% of cases.9, 45, 46, 47 For older patients, in whom comorbidities are more frequent and the risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity is higher, the risks of surgery are only acceptable if the patient's life expectancy is sufficiently longer than the time the tumor will take to progress.

Radiofrequency ablation and cryotherapy are promising minimally invasive alternatives to surgery, but they remain investigational treatments with potential morbidity and questionable efficacy over a short follow-up period.48, 49

Active surveillance

The studies on active surveillance described in the previous section suggest that many small, incidentally discovered renal neoplasms are not histologically or clinically malignant and do not pose an immediate threat to the patient's life. It seems reasonable, therefore, to re-examine the current practice of immediate surgery for all newly diagnosed small renal masses.7, 19, 20, 21, 28, 50 In patients who are elderly or infirm, it might be appropriate to pursue an initial strategy of observation, reserving surgical treatment for tumors that exhibit fast growth. An upper limit of 3–4 cm for the maximum tumor diameter is commonly used to identify renal masses that are at very low risk of metastasizing and associated with a better survival rate.18, 51, 52, 53 In our studies, we are currently testing the hypothesis that masses which reach 4 cm in maximum dimension, or double in volume in <12 months, are at risk of further progression and should be treated. Further experience is required before we can define growth-rate and size thresholds that warrant active treatment, but these appear to be conservative and reasonable upper limits for size and growth rate up to which continued surveillance might be considered, before triggering therapeutic interventions in selected patients.

Although determination of tumor growth rate is helpful in the initial conservative management of patients with small renal masses, it cannot give clinicians enough information to allow accurate prediction of the behavior of all small renal tumors. There is a clear need to identify prognostic factors that will help the urologist to distinguish tumors that are likely to progress, and thus require immediate surgery, from those that are indolent, for which active surveillance is recommended in order to avoid the complications and costs of unnecessary surgery. Many histologic and molecular markers have been studied as potential prognostic indicators, but because of a lack of sensitivity and specificity, none have yet been accepted for general use in clinical practice.54 New techniques of functional imaging and molecular or genomic studies on needle biopsy tissue should prove useful in evaluating the aggressiveness and metastatic potential of small renal tumors. There is already evidence that gene-expression profiles obtained with high-throughput microarray technology can identify histologic subtypes of RCC and predict clinical outcomes of the disease.55, 56, 57

Top

Conclusion

The reported incidence of RCC is increasing, largely owing to the growing use of cross-sectional imaging. Most renal tumors are now detected incidentally as small masses in asymptomatic patients. Only a small percentage of small renal masses presumed to be RCC grow significantly if managed conservatively and followed with serial imaging, whereas the majority exhibit slow or undetectable growth.

Measurement of tumor growth rate is helpful for initial conservative management of patients with small renal tumors. Renal needle-core biopsies now appear to be safe and can provide the clinician with essential information for treatment decision-making.

The standard of care for small localized renal neoplasms is partial or radical nephrectomy. At the present time, active surveillance of small renal masses is an experimental approach, but represents an attractive option for elderly patients and those with significant comorbidity. Progression to metastatic disease during active surveillance has not been reported, but longer follow-up is needed to confirm this observation.

Top

References

  1. Ries LA et al. (2005) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2002. National Cancer Institute: Bethesda, MD
  2. Pantuck AJ et al. (2001) The changing natural history of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166: 1611–1623 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  3. Chow WH et al. (1999) Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA 281: 1628–1631 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  4. Hock LM et al. (2002) Increasing incidence of all stages of kidney cancer in the last 2 decades in the United States: an analysis of surveillance, epidemiology and end results program data. J Urol 167: 57–60 | Article | PubMed | ISI |
  5. Tsui KH et al. (2000) Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumors. J Urol 163: 426–430 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  6. Skinner DG et al. (1971) Diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma. A clinical and pathologic study of 309 cases. Cancer 28: 1165–1177 | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  7. Luciani LG et al. (2000) Incidental renal cell carcinoma—age and stage characterization and clinical implications: study of 1092 patients (1982–1997). Urology 56: 58–62 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  8. Jayson M and Sanders H (1998) Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology 51: 203–205 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  9. Lee CT et al. (2000) Surgical management of renal tumors 4cm or less in a contemporary cohort. J Urol 163: 730–736 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  10. Licht MR et al. (1994) Nephron sparing surgery in incidental versus suspected renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 152: 39–42 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  11. Patard JJ et al. (2002) Prognostic significance of the mode of detection in renal tumours. BJU Int 90: 358–363 | Article | PubMed | ISI |
  12. Thompson IM and Peek M (1988) Improvement in survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma—the role of the serendipitously detected tumor. J Urol 140: 487–490 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  13. Katz DL et al. (1994) Time trends in the incidence of renal carcinoma: analysis of Connecticut Tumor Registry data, 1935–1989. Int J Cancer 58: 57–63 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  14. Sweeney JP et al. (1996) Incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma: pathological features, survival trends and implications for treatment. Br J Urol 78: 351–353 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  15. Frank I et al. (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170: 2217–2220 | Article | PubMed |
  16. Dechet CB et al. (1999) Prospective analysis of intraoperative frozen needle biopsy of solid renal masses in adults. J Urol 162: 1282–1285 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  17. Bretheau D et al. (1995) Prognostic significance of incidental renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 27: 319–323 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  18. Bell ET (1950) In Renal disease. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger
  19. Bosniak MA et al. (1995) Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations on growth. Radiology 197: 589–597 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  20. Oda T et al. (2001) Growth rates of primary and metastatic lesions of renal cell carcinoma. Int J Urol 8: 473–437 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  21. Rendon RA et al. (2000) The natural history of small renal masses. J Urol 164: 1143–1147 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  22. Volpe A et al. (2004) The natural history of incidentally detected small renal masses. Cancer 100: 738–745 | Article | PubMed |
  23. Kassouf W et al. (2004) Natural history of renal masses followed expectantly. J Urol 171: 111–113 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  24. Wehle MJ et al. (2004) Conservative management of incidental contrast-enhancing renal masses as safe alternative to invasive therapy. Urology 64: 49–52 | Article | PubMed |
  25. Kato M et al. (2004) Natural history of small renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of growth rate, histological grade, cell proliferation and apoptosis. J Urol 172: 863–866 | PubMed |
  26. Lamb GW et al. (2004) Management of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for nephrectomy—natural history, complications, and outcome. Urology 64: 909–913 | Article | PubMed |
  27. Kohanim S et al. (2005) Small (less than 1.5 cm) renal tumor with confirmed lung metastases. Urology 65: 172–173 | Article | PubMed |
  28. Parsons JK et al. (2001) Incidental renal tumors: casting doubt on the efficacy of early intervention. Urology 57: 1013–1015 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  29. Wunderlich H et al. (1998) Increase of renal cell carcinoma incidence in central Europe. Eur Urol 33: 538–541 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  30. Hellsten S et al. (1990) Clinically unrecognized renal cell carcinoma. Diagnostic and pathological aspects. Eur Urol 18 Suppl 2: 2–3
  31. Gillett MD et al. (2005) Comparison of presentation and outcome for patients 18 to 40 and 60 to 70 years old with solid renal masses. J Urol 173: 1893–1896 | Article | PubMed |
  32. Yaycioglu O et al. (2002) Clinical and pathologic tumor size in renal cell carcinoma. difference, correlation, and analysis of the influencing factors. Urology 60: 33–38 | Article | PubMed |
  33. Punnen S et al. (2004) Variability in size measurements of small renal masses on CT imaging. J Urol 171: 507
  34. Onishi T et al. (2001) Cyst-associated renal cell carcinoma: clinicopathologic characteristics and evaluation of prognosis in 27 cases. Int J Urol 8: 268–274 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  35. Corica FA et al. (1999) Cystic renal cell carcinoma is cured by resection: a study of 24 cases with long-term followup. J Urol 161: 408–411 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  36. Lechevallier E et al. (2000) Fine-needle percutaneous biopsy of renal masses with helical CT guidance. Radiology 216: 506–510 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  37. Wood BJ et al. (1999) Imaging guided biopsy of renal masses: indications, accuracy and impact on clinical management. J Urol 161: 1470–1474 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  38. Neuzillet Y et al. (2004) Accuracy and clinical role of fine needle percutaneous biopsy with computerized tomography guidance of small (less than 4.0 cm) renal masses. J Urol 171: 1802–1805 | Article | PubMed | ISI |
  39. Herts BR and Baker ME (1995) The current role of percutaneous biopsy in the evaluation of renal masses. Semin Urol Oncol 13: 254–261 | PubMed |
  40. Pantuck AJ et al. (2000) Incidental renal tumors. Urology 56: 190–196 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  41. Reddan DN et al. (2001) Management of small renal tumors: an overview. Am J Med 110: 558–562 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  42. Fergany AF et al. (2000) Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol 163: 442–445 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  43. Gill IS et al. (2003) Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal tumors in 200 patients. J Urol 170: 64–68 | Article | PubMed | ISI |
  44. Link RE et al. (2005) Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass. J Urol 173: 1690–1694 | Article | PubMed |
  45. Mejean A et al. (1999) Mortality and morbidity after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma using a transperitoneal anterior subcostal incision. Eur Urol 36: 298–302 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  46. Uzzo RG and Novick AC (2001) Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol 166: 6–18 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  47. Stephenson AJ et al. (2004) Complications of radical and partial nephrectomy in a large contemporary cohort. J Urol 171: 130–134 | Article | PubMed | ISI |
  48. Rendon RA et al. (2002) The uncertainty of radio frequency treatment of renal cell carcinoma: findings at immediate and delayed nephrectomy. J Urol 167: 1587–1592 | Article | PubMed |
  49. Desai MM and Gill IS (2002) Current status of cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation in the management of renal tumors. Curr Opin Urol 12: 387–393 | Article | PubMed |
  50. Luciani LG (2001) Re: Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumors. J Urol 165: 1223 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  51. Frank I et al. (2002) An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol 168: 2395–2400 | Article | PubMed | ISI |
  52. Zisman A et al. (2001) Re-evaluation of the 1997 TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: T1 and T2 cutoff point at 4.5 rather than 7 cm better correlates with clinical outcome. J Urol 166: 54–58 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  53. Walther MM et al. (1999) Renal cancer in families with hereditary renal cancer: prospective analysis of a tumor size threshold for renal parenchymal sparing surgery. J Urol 161: 1475–1479 | PubMed | ChemPort |
  54. Gelb AB et al. (1997) Appraisal of intratumoral microvessel density, MIB-1 score, DNA content, and p53 protein expression as prognostic indicators in patients with locally confined renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 80: 1768–1775 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  55. Takahashi M et al. (2001) Gene expression profiling of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: gene identification and prognostic classification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 9754–9759 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  56. Takahashi M et al. (2003) Molecular subclassification of kidney tumors and the discovery of new diagnostic markers. Oncogene 22: 6810–6818 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  57. Young AN et al. (2001) Expression profiling of renal epithelial neoplasms: a method for tumor classification and discovery of diagnostic molecular markers. Am J Pathol 158: 1639–1651 | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Top
Competing interests

The authors declared no competing interests.

Top

Contact the journal about this article

Subject areas under which this article appears: Urologic oncology (nonprostatic)

MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS

These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated.

RESEARCH

Concurrent Angiomyolipoma and Renal Cell Neoplasia: A Study of 36 Cases

Modern Pathology Original Article