Mark T Dawidek, Juan Sebastian Arroyave Villada, Katiana Vazquez-Rivera, Hannah Fuchs, Lina Posada Calderon, Lennert Eismann, Stephen W Reese, Marc Ganz, Fourat Ridouani, Irina Ostrovnaya, Karim A Touijer, Jonathan A Coleman, Paul Russo, A Ari Hakimi
{"title":"Higher Risk Renal Angiomyolipomas: Surveillance Remains a Safe Management Option.","authors":"Mark T Dawidek, Juan Sebastian Arroyave Villada, Katiana Vazquez-Rivera, Hannah Fuchs, Lina Posada Calderon, Lennert Eismann, Stephen W Reese, Marc Ganz, Fourat Ridouani, Irina Ostrovnaya, Karim A Touijer, Jonathan A Coleman, Paul Russo, A Ari Hakimi","doi":"10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This retrospective study furthers our understanding of risk factors associated with hemorrhage and intervention in renal angiomyolipomas (R-AMLs), particularly in larger tumors (≥ 4 cm) and in childbearing-age (CBA; younger than 50 years) women. The objective was to refine risk stratification and optimize patient management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Review of our institutional database identified patients with radiographic R-AML from 1997 to 2023. Patient characteristics, R-AML characteristics, and clinical course were collected. Patients were grouped by management trajectories and analyzed across R-AML size, sex, and CBA woman status. Growth rates were modeled using linear mixed-effects regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 162 patients in this cohort, 22% had large R-AML (≥ 4 cm), of which the majority (66%) were managed with surveillance and a substantial portion (43%) never underwent intervention. The 23% of the cohort who were CBA women were similarly primarily managed with surveillance (74%), and more than half never underwent intervention (53%). The median follow-up on surveillance was 5.4 years. There was a significantly higher modeled growth rate with larger baseline tumor size, but growth rate was not affected by CBA woman status. Most cases of bleeding were in patients with markedly enlarged R-AML with multiple risk factors, but there were no serious adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study is enriched for large R-AML and uniquely focuses on CBA women. It reinforces the notion that most large R-AMLs are treated asymptomatically and do not necessarily represent the bleeding risk historically ascribed to them. It suggests that CBA woman status alone should not motivate R-AML treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":45220,"journal":{"name":"Urology Practice","volume":" ","pages":"101097UPJ0000000000000756"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000756","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective study furthers our understanding of risk factors associated with hemorrhage and intervention in renal angiomyolipomas (R-AMLs), particularly in larger tumors (≥ 4 cm) and in childbearing-age (CBA; younger than 50 years) women. The objective was to refine risk stratification and optimize patient management.
Methods: Review of our institutional database identified patients with radiographic R-AML from 1997 to 2023. Patient characteristics, R-AML characteristics, and clinical course were collected. Patients were grouped by management trajectories and analyzed across R-AML size, sex, and CBA woman status. Growth rates were modeled using linear mixed-effects regression.
Results: Of the 162 patients in this cohort, 22% had large R-AML (≥ 4 cm), of which the majority (66%) were managed with surveillance and a substantial portion (43%) never underwent intervention. The 23% of the cohort who were CBA women were similarly primarily managed with surveillance (74%), and more than half never underwent intervention (53%). The median follow-up on surveillance was 5.4 years. There was a significantly higher modeled growth rate with larger baseline tumor size, but growth rate was not affected by CBA woman status. Most cases of bleeding were in patients with markedly enlarged R-AML with multiple risk factors, but there were no serious adverse events.
Conclusions: This study is enriched for large R-AML and uniquely focuses on CBA women. It reinforces the notion that most large R-AMLs are treated asymptomatically and do not necessarily represent the bleeding risk historically ascribed to them. It suggests that CBA woman status alone should not motivate R-AML treatment.