scholarly journals The Role of Surveillance in the Management of Small Renal Masses

TSW Urology ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 134-142
Author(s):  
Alessandro Volpe
Keyword(s):  
Small Renal Masses ◽  
Renal Masses

The role of laparoscopy and robotic surgery in the management of small renal masses

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 799-810
Author(s):  
David Hrouda ◽  
Andrew Lienert
Keyword(s):  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Small Renal Masses ◽  
Renal Masses

The role of renal mass biopsy in the management of small renal masses – patterns of use and surgeon opinion

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 356-363
Author(s):  
Melinda M Protani ◽  
Andre Joshi ◽  
Victoria White ◽  
David JT Marco ◽  
Rachel E Neale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Records ◽  
Renal Mass ◽  
Practice Variation ◽  
Small Renal Masses ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Renal Masses ◽  
Patterns Of Use ◽  
Renal Mass Biopsy ◽  
Pre Treatment

Aims: Renal mass biopsy (RMB) is advocated to improve management of small renal masses, however there is concern about its clinical utility. This study aimed to elicit opinions about the role of RMB in small renal mass management from surgeons managing renal cell carcinomas (RCC), and examine the frequency of pre-treatment biopsy in those with RCC. Methods: All surgeons in two Australian states (Queensland: n = 59 and Victoria: n = 108) who performed nephrectomies for RCC in 2012/2013 were sent questionnaires to ascertain views about RMB. Response rates were 54% for Queensland surgeons and 38% for Victorian surgeons. We used medical records data from RCC patients to determine RMB frequency. Results: Most Queensland (81%) and Victorian (59%) surgeons indicated they rarely requested RMB; however 34% of Victorians reported often requesting RMB, compared with no Queensland surgeons. This was consistent with medical records data: 17.6% of Victorian patients with T1a tumours received RMB versus 6.7% of Queensland patients ( p < 0.001). Surgeons’ principal concerns regarding RMB related to sampling reliability (90%) and/or histopathological interpretation (76%). Conclusions: Most surgeons report infrequent use of RMB for small renal masses, however we observed practice variation. The principal reasons for infrequent use were concerns about sampling reliability and histopathological interpretation, which may be valid in regions with less access to interventional radiologists and uropathologists. Further evidence is required to define patient groups for whom biopsy results will alter management. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

Evolving role of renal biopsy in small renal masses

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 332-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rou Wang ◽  
David P. Wood
Keyword(s):  
Renal Biopsy ◽  
Small Renal Masses ◽  
Renal Masses

ROLE OF BIOPSY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SMALL RENAL MASSES

2009 ◽  
Vol 181 (4S) ◽  
pp. 246-246
Author(s):  
Bilal Chughtai ◽  
Ronald Kaufman ◽  
Hugh A.G. Fisher ◽  
Gary Sisken ◽  
Badar M Mian
Keyword(s):  
Small Renal Masses ◽  
Renal Masses

Small Renal Masses: To Biopsy or Not? The Role of Imaging in the Evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-157
Author(s):  
Geert M. Villeirs ◽  
Pieter J. De Visschere ◽  
Eva Pattyn
Keyword(s):  
Small Renal Masses ◽  
Renal Masses

2005 DIFFERENTIATION OF ONCOCYTOMA AND RENAL CELL CARCINOMA IN SMALL RENAL MASSES (<4CM): THE ROLE OF 4 PHASE COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY

2010 ◽  
Vol 183 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Bird ◽  
Prashanth Kanagarajah ◽  
Gaston Morillo ◽  
Daniel Caruso ◽  
Rajinikanth Ayyathurai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Computerized Tomography ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Small Renal Masses ◽  
Renal Masses
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document