Journals / Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni / 2021 / Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 1

Can we Avoid the Unnecessary Loss of nephrons in the Management of Small Solid Renal Masses? Additional Clinical Parameters to Predict Benign-malign Distinction

Pages
53–61
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this way, we may prevent the unnecessary loss of nephrons in benign masses with suspicion of malignancy

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: We aimed to investigate the predictive value of additional parameters for distinguishing benign-malign tumors and to prevent the loss of nephrons in small (≤4 cm) solid renal masses.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The data of 56 patients underwent partial or radical nephrectomy between September 2009 and December 2017 due to diagnosis of localized renal cell carcinoma were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this way, we may prevent the unnecessary loss of nephrons in benign masses with suspicion of malignancy
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the predictive value of additional parameters for distinguishing benign-malign tumors and to prevent the loss of nephrons in small (≤4 cm) solid renal masses. Methods: The data of 56 patients underwent partial or radical nephrectomy between September 2009 and December 2017 due to diagnosis of localized renal cell carcinoma were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic datas, histopathological tumor types, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte/lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), red blood cell distribution width (RDW), mean platelet volume (MPV), the Framingham risk score and its components, postoperative follow-up results were recorded. Patients were divided into two groups as benign and malign. Results: Among 56 patients with a median age of 60 (min: 35-max: 74) years, 13 patients had benign and 43 patients had malign pathologies. MLR (p=0.011), NLR (p=0.032), PLR (p=0.006), MPV (p=0.025), eGFR (p=0.019) and the Framingham score (p=0.008) were significantly higher in malign group. Among the components constituting the Framingham score, only presence of smok - ing (p=0.032), presence of hypertension (p=0.041) and total cholesterol values (p=0.021) were significantly higher. In multivariate analysis, NLR>2.02 (OR:7.184, p=0.037), PLR>109.65 (OR:12.692, p=0.002), MPV>3.44 (OR:10.543, p=0.046) and Framingham score >10.5 (OR:12.287, p=0.007) were found as predictive factors for distinguishing small solid renal masses concerning malignancy. Conclusion: We think that NLR, PLR, MPV and the Framingham scores may be used in the clinical evaluation of small solid renal masses. In this way, we may prevent the unnecessary loss of nephrons in benign masses with suspicion of malignancy

🔖

Cite This Article

SELVİ, I., BASAR, H. (2021). Can we Avoid the Unnecessary Loss of nephrons in the Management of Small Solid Renal Masses? Additional Clinical Parameters to Predict Benign-malign Distinction. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 1, 53–61. https://ajindex.com/articles/402861

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Lim RS, McInnes MDF, Siddaiah M, Flood TA, Lavallee LT, Schieda N. Are growth patterns on MRI in small ( 2. Schachter LR, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Smith JA Jr, Dietrich MS, Jayaram G, et al. Second prize: frequency of benign renal cortical tumors and histologic subtypes based on size in a contemporary series: what to tell our patients. J Endourol 2007;21:819–23. 3. Sohlberg EM, Metzner TJ, Leppert JT. The Harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment in patients with small renal masses: a mini-re- view. Eur Urol Focus 2019;5:943–5. 4. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 2003;170:2217–20. 5. Song JB, Morrissey JJ, Mobley JM, Figenshau KG, Vetter JM, Bhayani SB, et al. Urinary aquaporin 1 and perilipin 2: Can these novel markers accurately characterize small renal masses and help guide patient management? Int J Urol 2019;26:260–5. 6. Hoang UN, Mojdeh Mirmomen S, Meirelles O, Yao J, Merino M, Metwalli A, et al. Assessment of multiphasic contrast-enhanced MR textures in differentiating small renal mass subtypes. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018;43:3400–9. 7. Menogue SR, O'Brien BA, Brown AL, Cohen RJ. Percutaneous core biopsy of small renal mass lesions: a diagnostic tool to better stratify patients for surgical intervention. BJU Int 2013;111:E146– 51. 8. Leveridge MJ, Finelli A, Kachura JR, Evans A, Chung H, Shiff DA, et al. Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondi- agnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 2011;60:578–84. 9. Park SY, Jeon SS, Lee SY, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Lee HM, et al. Incidence and predictive factors of benign renal lesions in Korean patients with preoperative imaging diagnoses of renal cell carcinoma. J Korean Med Sci 2011;26:360–4. 10. Levy D, Wilson PW, Anderson KM, Castelli WP. Stratifying the pa- tient at risk from coronary disease: new insights from the Fram- ingham Heart Study. Am Heart J 1990;119:712–7. 11. Tekkesin N, Kılınc C, Ökmen AS. Investigation of Framingham Risk Factors in Turkish adults. J Clin Exp Invest 2011;2:42–9. 12. Kannel WB, McGee D, Gordon T. A general cardiovascular risk pro- file: the Framingham Study. Am J Cardiol 1976;38:46–51. 13. Kaushik D, Kim SP, Childs MA, Lohse CM, Costello BA, Cheville JC, et al. Overall survival and development of stage IV chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing partial and radical nephrectomy for benign renal tumors. Eur Urol 2013;64:600–6. 14