REFERENCES
1. Siegel RL, Kratzer TB, Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2025. CA Cancer J Clin. 2025;75:10-45.
2. Singer EA, Bratslavsky G, Linehan WM, Srinivasan R. Targeted therapies for non-clear renal cell carcinoma. Target Oncol. 2010;5:119-29.
3. Kauffman EC, Ball MW, Barod R, et al. 2022 WUOF/SIU International Consultation on Urological Diseases: active surveillance for small renal masses. Soc Int Urol J. 2022;3:424-36.
4. Alkhatib KY, Cheaib JG, Pallauf M, et al. Active surveillance vs primary intervention for clinical T1a kidney tumors: 12-year experience of the delayed intervention and surveillance for small renal masses prospective comparative study. J Urol. 2025;214:197-209.
5. Tang Y, Liu F, Mao X, et al. The impact of tumor size on the survival of patients with small renal masses: a population-based study. Cancer Med. 2022;11:2377-85.
6. Thompson RH, Hill JR, Babayev Y, et al. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma risk according to tumor size. J Urol. 2009;182:41-5.
7. Capitanio U, Bensalah K, Bex A, et al. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2019;75:74-84.
8. Katsanos K, Mailli L, Krokidis M, McGrath A, Sabharwal T, Adam A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of thermal ablation versus surgical nephrectomy for small renal tumours. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37:427-37.
9. Aveta A, Iossa V, Spena G, et al. Ablative treatments for small renal masses and management of recurrences: a comprehensive review. Life. 2024;14:450.
10. Iossa V, Pandolfo SD, Buonopane R, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy vs. percutaneous cryoablation for T1a renal tumors: a single-center retrospective analysis of outcomes and costs. Int Urol Nephrol. 2025;57:1097-104.
11. Doolittle J, Piotrowski J, Zuk K, et al. Evolving trends for selected treatments of T1a renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2019;132:136-42.
12. Menon AR, Hussein AA, Attwood KM, et al. Active surveillance for risk stratification of all small renal masses lacking predefined clinical criteria for intervention. J Urol. 2021;206:229-39.
13. Altok M, Menon A, Aly A, et al. PD15-09 Updated outcomes for active surveillance recommended to all small renal mass patients lacking progression criteria for intervention. J Urol. 2022;207:e266.
14. Patel AK, Rogers CG, Johnson A, et al.; Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. Initial observation of a large proportion of patients presenting with clinical stage T1 renal masses: results from the MUSIC-KIDNEY Statewide Collaborative. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021;23:13-9.
16. Koelker M, Krimphove M, Alkhatib K, et al. Understanding hospital-level patterns of nonoperative management for low-risk thyroid and kidney cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2242210.
17. Liu JJ, Leppert JT, Maxwell BG, Panousis P, Chung BI. Trends and perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic nephrectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:473-9.
18. Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2011;59:543-52.
19. Smaldone MC, Kutikov A, Egleston BL, et al. Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Cancer. 2012;118:997-1006.
20. Pyrgidis N, Schulz GB, Stief C, et al. Surgical trends and complications in partial and radical nephrectomy: results from the GRAND study. Cancers. 2023;16:97.
21. Pascal G, Eschwège P, Salleron J, Balkau B, Hubert J, Mazeaud C. Open versus mini-invasive partial and radical nephrectomy complications: results from the French national health database. BMC Urol. 2024;24:229.
22. Subramanian L, Hawley ST, Skolarus TA, et al. Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study. Cancer Med. 2024;13:e6847.
23. American Urological Association. Code of ethics. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/myaua/aua-ethics/code-of-ethics. [Last accesssed on 9 May 2026].
24. American College of Surgeons. Statements on principles. 2016. Available from: https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/statements-on-principles/. [Last accesssed on 9 May 2026].
25. Campbell SC, Uzzo RG, Karam JA, Chang SS, Clark PE, Souter L. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: evaluation, management, and follow-up: AUA Guideline: Part II. J Urol. 2021;206:209-18.
26. Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Agarwal N, et al. Kidney cancer, version 3. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20:71-90.
27. Finelli A, Ismaila N, Bro B, et al. Management of small renal masses: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:668-80.
28. Zhang L, Yin W, Yao L, et al. Growth pattern of clear cell renal cell carcinoma in patients with delayed surgical intervention: fast growth rate correlates with high grade and may result in poor prognosis. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:598134.
29. Schiavina R, Borghesi M, Dababneh H, et al. Small renal masses managed with active surveillance: predictors of tumor growth rate after long-term follow-up. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015;13:e87-92.
30. Celtik KE, Shah PH, Patel VR, et al. Active surveillance for incidental renal mass in the octogenarian. World J Urol. 2017;35:1089-94.
31. Paterson C, Yew-Fung C, Sweeney C, Szewczyk-Bieda M, Lang S, Nabi G. Predictors of growth kinetics and outcomes in small renal masses (SRM ≤ 4 cm in size): Tayside Active Surveillance Cohort (TASC) Study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:1589-97.
32. McIntosh AG, Ristau BT, Ruth K, et al. Active surveillance for localized renal masses: tumor growth, delayed intervention rates, and >5-yr clinical outcomes. Eur Urol. 2018;74:157-64.
33. Petros FG, Venkatesan AM, Kaya D, et al. Conditional survival of patients with small renal masses undergoing active surveillance. BJU Int. 2019;123:447-55.
34. Whelan EA, Mason RJ, Himmelman JG, Matheson K, Rendon RA. Extended duration of active surveillance of small renal masses: a prospective cohort study. J Urol. 2019;202:57-61.
35. Finelli A, Cheung DC, Al-Matar A, et al. Small renal mass surveillance: histology-specific growth rates in a biopsy-characterized cohort. Eur Urol. 2020;78:460-7.
36. Bertelli E, Palombella A, Sessa F, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging for active surveillance of small renal masses. World J Urol. 2021;39:2853-60.
37. Altok M, Menon A, Aly A, et al. PD58-10 Outcomes of active surveillance for young and healthy patients with small renal masses. J Urol. 2024;211:e1219.
38. Ajami T, Lázaro EV, Herrera ET, et al. Multicenter study of active surveillance for small renal masses: real world practice pattern. Urol Oncol. 2025;43:334.e1-6.
39. Richard PO, Violette PD, Bhindi B, et al. Canadian Urological Association guideline: management of small renal masses - full-text. Can Urol Assoc J. 2022;16:E61-75.
40. Powles T, Albiges L, Bex A, et al.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2024;35:692-706.
41. Gupta M, Alam R, Patel HD, et al. Use of delayed intervention for small renal masses initially managed with active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2019;37:18-25.
42. Crispen PL, Viterbo R, Boorjian SA, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. Natural history, growth kinetics, and outcomes of untreated clinically localized renal tumors under active surveillance. Cancer. 2009;115:2844-52.
43. Dorin R, Jackson M, Cusano A, et al. Active surveillance of renal masses: an analysis of growth kinetics and clinical outcomes stratified by radiological characteristics at diagnosis. Int Braz J Urol. 2014;40:627-36.
44. Ajami T, Sebastia C, Corominas D, et al. Clinical and radiological findings for small renal masses under active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:499.e9-14.
45. Patel HD, Riffon MF, Joice GA, et al. A prospective, comparative study of quality of life among patients with small renal masses choosing active surveillance and primary intervention. J Urol. 2016;196:1356-62.
46. Alam R, Patel HD, Osumah T, et al. Comparative effectiveness of management options for patients with small renal masses: a prospective cohort study. BJU Int. 2019;123:42-50.
47. Goldberg H, Ajaj R, Cáceres JOH, et al. Psychological distress associated with active surveillance in patients younger than 70 with a small renal mass. Urol Oncol. 2020;38:603.e17-25.
48. Iguchi T, Hiraki T, Matsui Y, et al. Image-guided core biopsy of 2-cm or smaller renal tumors. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020;101:715-20.
49. Bex A, Ghanem YA, Albiges L, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2025 update. Eur Urol. 2025;87:683-96.
50. Paterson C, Ghaemi J, Alashkham A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of image-guided biopsies in small (< 4 cm) renal masses with implications for active surveillance: a systematic review of the evidence. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20170761.
51. Lee SW, Sung HH, Jeon HG, et al. Size and volumetric growth kinetics of renal masses in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2016;90:119-24.
52. Kato M, Suzuki T, Suzuki Y, Terasawa Y, Sasano H, Arai Y. Natural history of small renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of growth rate, histological grade, cell proliferation and apoptosis. J Urol. 2004;172:863-6.
53. Li Z, Zhang J, Zhang L, et al. Natural history and growth kinetics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma in sporadic and von Hippel-Lindau disease. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:1064-70.
54. Rosales JC, Haramis G, Moreno J, et al. Active surveillance for renal cortical neoplasms. J Urol. 2010;183:1698-702.
55. Uzosike AC, Patel HD, Alam R, et al. Growth kinetics of small renal masses on active surveillance: variability and results from the DISSRM registry. J Urol. 2018;199:641-8.
56. Alkhatib KY, Cheaib JG, Singla N, et al. PD26-02 Controlled comparative outcomes of active surveillance and primary intervention for clinical T1A kidney tumors: a contemporary propensity score and competing risks analysis from the DISSRM prospective study. J Urol. 2025;213:e943.
57. Metcalf MR, Cheaib JG, Biles MJ, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for young patients with small renal masses: prospective data from the DISSRM registry. J Urol. 2021;205:1286-93.
58. Lavallée LT, Finelli A, Tanguay S, et al. Incidence of local treatment and metastasis during active surveillance for patients with a small renal mass in a national multicenter prospective cohort. J Urol. 2026;215:57-69.
59. Syed JS, Nguyen KA, Holford TR, Hofmann JN, Shuch B. Risk factors for metachronous bilateral renal cell carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results analysis. Cancer. 2019;125:232-8.
60. Jewett MA, Mattar K, Basiuk J, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60:39-44.
61. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69:660-73.
62. Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, Zhou M, Novick AC, Campbell SC. Renal mass biopsy - a renaissance? J Urol. 2008;179:20-7.
63. Kahn AE, Lomax SJ, Bajalia EM, Ball CT, Thiel DD. Utility of the aortic-lesion-attenuation-difference (ALAD) and peak early-phase enhancement ratio (PEER) to differentiate benign from malignant renal masses. Can J Urol. 2020;27:10278-84.
64. Gormley TS, Van Every MJ, Moreno AJ. Renal oncocytoma: preoperative diagnosis using technetium 99m sestamibi imaging. Urology. 1996;48:33-9.
65. Nikpanah M, Xu Z, Jin D, et al. A deep-learning based artificial intelligence (AI) approach for differentiation of clear cell renal cell carcinoma from oncocytoma on multi-phasic MRI. Clin Imaging. 2021;77:291-8.
66. Patard JJ, Kim HL, Lam JS, et al. Use of the University of California Los Angeles integrated staging system to predict survival in renal cell carcinoma: an international multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3316-22.
67. Shuch B, Pantuck AJ, Bernhard JC, et al. [89Zr]Zr-girentuximab for PET-CT imaging of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a prospective, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25:1277-87.
68. Gorin MA, Rowe SP, Baras AS, et al. Prospective evaluation of (99m)Tc-sestamibi SPECT/CT for the diagnosis of renal oncocytomas and hybrid oncocytic/chromophobe tumors. Eur Urol. 2016;69:413-6.
69. Sheikhbahaei S, Jones CS, Porter KK, et al. Defining the added value of 99mTc-MIBI SPECT/CT to conventional cross-sectional imaging in the characterization of enhancing solid renal masses. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:e188-93.
70. Rowe SP, Murtazaliev S, Oldan JD, et al. Imaging of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with (99m)Tc-sestamibi SPECT/CT: considerations regarding risk stratification and histologic reclassification. Mol Imaging Biol. 2024;26:768-73.
