FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2074799294> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2074799294 endingPage "1342" @default.
• W2074799294 startingPage "1337" @default.
• W2074799294 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Nov 2014Evaluation of Renal Mass Biopsy Risk Stratification Algorithm for Robotic Partial Nephrectomy—Could a Biopsy Have Guided Management? Haider Rahbar, Sam Bhayani, Michael Stifelman, Jihad Kaouk, Mohamad Allaf, Susan Marshall, Homayoun Zargar, Mark W. Ball, Jeffrey Larson, and Craig Rogers Haider RahbarHaider Rahbar Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan More articles by this author , Sam BhayaniSam Bhayani Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri More articles by this author , Michael StifelmanMichael Stifelman Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical, Surgiquest and VTI. More articles by this author , Jihad KaoukJihad Kaouk The Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio More articles by this author , Mohamad AllafMohamad Allaf James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland More articles by this author , Susan MarshallSusan Marshall Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author , Homayoun ZargarHomayoun Zargar The Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio More articles by this author , Mark W. BallMark W. Ball James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland More articles by this author , Jeffrey LarsonJeffrey Larson Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri More articles by this author , and Craig RogersCraig Rogers Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.06.028AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We evaluated a published biopsy directed small renal mass management algorithm using a large cohort of patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for tumors 4 cm or smaller. Materials and Methods: A simplified algorithm of biopsy directed small renal mass management previously reported using risk stratified biopsies was applied to 1,175 robotic partial nephrectomy cases from 5 academic centers. A theoretical assumption was made of perfect biopsies that were feasible for all patients and had 100% concordance to final pathology. Pathology risk groups were benign, favorable, unfavorable and intermediate. The algorithm assigned favorable or intermediate tumors smaller than 2 cm to active surveillance and unfavorable or intermediate 2 to 4 cm tumors to treatment. Higher surgical risk patients were defined as ASA® 3 or greater and age 70 years or older. Results: Patients were assigned to the pathology risk groups of benign (23%), favorable (13%), intermediate (51%) and unfavorable (12%). Patients were also assigned to the management groups of benign pathology (275, 23%), active surveillance (336, 29%) and treatment (564, 48%). Most of the 611 (52%) patients in the benign or active surveillance groups were low surgical risk and had safe treatment (2.6% high grade complications). A biopsy may not have been feasible or accurate in some tumors that were anterior (378, 32%), hilar (93, 7.9%) or less than 2 cm (379, 32%). Of 129 (11%) high surgical risk patients the biopsy algorithm assigned 70 (54%) to benign or active surveillance groups. Conclusions: The theoretical application of a biopsy driven, risk stratified small renal mass management algorithm to a large robotic partial nephrectomy database suggests that about half of the patients might have avoided surgery. Despite the obvious limitations of a theoretical assumption of all patients receiving a perfect biopsy, the data support the emerging role of renal mass biopsies to guide management, particularly in high surgical risk patients. References 1 : 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 Urol2002; 167: 57. Link, Google Scholar 2 : The evolving presentation of renal carcinoma in the United States: trends from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. J Urol2006; 176: 2397. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst2006; 98: 1331. Google Scholar 4 : Small renal mass: to treat or not to treat. Curr Urol Rep2013; 14: 13. Google Scholar 5 : Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol2011; 60: 39. Google Scholar 6 : Accuracy of determining small renal mass management with risk stratified biopsies: confirmation by final pathology. J Urol2013; 189: 441. Link, Google Scholar 7 : The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol2009; 182: 844. Link, Google Scholar 8 : The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg2009; 250: 187. Google Scholar 9 : Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondiagnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur Urol2011; 60: 578. Google Scholar 10 : Accuracy of percutaneous core biopsy in management of small renal masses. Urology2009; 73: 586. Google Scholar 11 : The posterior intercostal approach for percutaneous renal procedures: risk of puncturing the lung, spleen, and liver as determined by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol1990; 154: 115. Google Scholar 12 : Percutaneous core biopsy of small renal mass lesions: a diagnostic tool to better stratify patients for surgical intervention. BJU Int2013; 111: E146. Google Scholar 13 : Active surveillance of small renal masses offers short-term oncological efficacy equivalent to radical and partial nephrectomy. BJU Int2012; 110: 1270. Google Scholar 14 : Understanding criteria for surveillance of patients with a small renal mass. Urology2012; 79: 1027. Google Scholar 15 : Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Cancer2012; 118: 997. Google Scholar 16 : Active treatment of localized renal tumors may not impact overall survival in patients aged 75 years or older. Cancer2010; 116: 3119. Google Scholar 17 : Effect of renal cancer size on the prevalence of metastasis at diagnosis and mortality. J Urol2009; 181: 1020. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Assessing the burden of complications after surgery for clinically localized kidney cancer by age and comorbidity status. Urology2014; 83: 843. Google Scholar 19 : Five-year survival after surgical treatment for kidney cancer, a population-based competing risk analysis. Cancer2007; 109: 1763. Google Scholar 20 : Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol2003; 170: 2217. Link, Google Scholar 21 : Image-guided biopsy in the evaluation of renal mass lesions in contemporary urological practice: indications, adequacy, clinical impact, and limitations of the pathological diagnosis. Hum Pathol2005; 36: 1309. Google Scholar 22 : EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol2010; 58: 398. Google Scholar 23 : Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol2009; 182: 127. Google Scholar 24 : NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: kidney cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2009; 7: 618. Google Scholar 25 : Utilization of renal mass biopsy in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urology2014; 83: 774. Google Scholar © 2014 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byMenon A, Hussein A, Attwood K, White T, James G, Xu B, Petroziello M, Roche C and Kauffman E (2021) Active Surveillance for Risk Stratification of All Small Renal Masses Lacking Predefined Clinical Criteria for InterventionJournal of Urology, VOL. 206, NO. 2, (229-239), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2021.Osawa T, Hafez K, Miller D, Montgomery J, Morgan T, Palapattu G, Weizer A, Caoili E, Ellis J, Kunju L and Wolf J (2015) Age, Gender and R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry Score do not Improve the Accuracy of a Risk Stratification Algorithm Based on Biopsy and Mass Size for Assigning Surveillance versus Treatment of Renal TumorsJournal of Urology, VOL. 195, NO. 3, (574-580), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2016.Steers W (2014) This Month in Adult UrologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 5, (1309-1310), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2014. Volume 192Issue 5November 2014Page: 1337-1342 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordscarcinomakidney neoplasmsbiopsyrenal cellMetricsAuthor Information Haider Rahbar Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan More articles by this author Sam Bhayani Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri More articles by this author Michael Stifelman Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical, Surgiquest and VTI. More articles by this author Jihad Kaouk The Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio More articles by this author Mohamad Allaf James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland More articles by this author Susan Marshall Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author Homayoun Zargar The Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio More articles by this author Mark W. Ball James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland More articles by this author Jeffrey Larson Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri More articles by this author Craig Rogers Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Financial interest and/or other relationship with Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2074799294 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5003617077 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5014140682 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5016065066 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5016170068 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5023916788 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5024005878 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5024448104 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5036466344 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5047949426 @default.
• W2074799294 creator A5068011236 @default.
• W2074799294 date "2014-11-01" @default.
• W2074799294 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2074799294 title "Evaluation of Renal Mass Biopsy Risk Stratification Algorithm for Robotic Partial Nephrectomy—Could a Biopsy Have Guided Management?" @default.
• W2074799294 cites W1874072058 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W1974788327 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W1985870160 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W1992962720 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2015695779 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2021592757 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2031087535 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2034579655 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2054645085 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2055023522 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2078234387 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2094159831 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2097096070 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2131595192 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2137460686 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2141371533 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2144173184 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2154156474 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2159502731 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2160046662 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2166597765 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2170805674 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2414641360 @default.
• W2074799294 cites W2911611736 @default.
• W2074799294 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.06.028" @default.
• W2074799294 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24936720" @default.
• W2074799294 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2074799294 type Work @default.
• W2074799294 sameAs 2074799294 @default.
• W2074799294 citedByCount "34" @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942014 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942015 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942016 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942017 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942018 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942019 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942020 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942021 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942022 @default.
• W2074799294 countsByYear W20747992942023 @default.
• W2074799294 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5003617077 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5014140682 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5016065066 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5016170068 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5023916788 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5024005878 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5024448104 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5036466344 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5047949426 @default.
• W2074799294 hasAuthorship W2074799294A5068011236 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C2775934546 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C2780091579 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C2780227381 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C2781087799 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C2992994880 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C3020404979 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C11413529 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C126322002 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C126838900 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C126894567 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C2775934546 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C2780091579 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C2780227381 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C2781087799 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C2992994880 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C3020404979 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C41008148 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C61434518 @default.
• W2074799294 hasConceptScore W2074799294C71924100 @default.
• W2074799294 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2074799294 hasLocation W20747992941 @default.
• W2074799294 hasLocation W20747992942 @default.
• W2074799294 hasOpenAccess W2074799294 @default.
• W2074799294 hasPrimaryLocation W20747992941 @default.
• W2074799294 hasRelatedWork W2044805139 @default.

• next