Surveillance for low-risk kidney cancer: a narrative review of contemporary worldwide practices

The management trend of low-risk kidney cancer over the last decade has been from treatment with radical nephrectomy, to use of nephron sparing procedures of partial nephrectomy and ablation, as well as the option of active surveillance (AS). This narrative review aims to summarise the available guidelines related to AS and review the published descriptions of regional practices on the management of low-risk kidney cancer worldwide. A search of PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases for studies published 2010 to June 2020 identified 15 studies, performed between 2000 and 2019, which investigated 13 different cohorts of low-risk kidney cancer patients on AS. Although international guidelines show a level of agreement in their recommendation on how AS is conducted, in terms of patient selection, surveillance strategy and triggers for intervention, cohort studies show distinct differences in worldwide practice of AS. Prospective studies showed general agreement in their predefined selection criteria for entry into AS. Retrospective studies showed that patients who were older, with greater comorbidities, worse performance status and smaller tumours were more likely to be managed with AS. The rate of percutaneous renal mass biopsy varied between studies from 2% to 56%. The surveillance protocol was different across all studies in terms of recommended modality and frequency of imaging. Of the 6 studies which had set indications for intervention, these were broadly in agreement. Despite clear criteria for intervention, patient or surgeon preference was still the reason in 11–71% of cases of delayed intervention across 5 studies. This review shows that AS is being applied in a variety of centres worldwide and that key areas of patient selection criteria and surveillance strategy have large similarities. However, the rate of renal mass biopsy and of delayed intervention varies significantly between studies, suggesting the process of diagnosing malignant SRM and decision making whilst on AS are varying in practice. Further research is needed on the diagnosis and characterisation of incidentally found small renal masses (SRM), using imaging and histology, and the natural history of these SRM in order to develop evidence-based active surveillance protocols.