ArticleMini-invasive surgery2026
Current controversies with active surveillance management of small renal masses.
Article in Mini-invasive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Active surveillance (AS) management for patients with small renal masses (SRMs) is increasing globally, but questions remain regarding optimal AS practice. This review provides an evidence-based perspective on current controversies in SRM AS management. Considerable variation in AS utilization likely reflects non-standardization of patient selection criteria and differences among providers and healthcare settings. While most expert-consensus guidelines still restrict AS candidacy to patients with very small (< 1-2cm) renal tumors or significant health issues, increasing research supports AS to be an acceptable option for tumors up to 4 cm and a preferred option for many tumors up to 2 cm. For younger patients, AS appears oncologically safe but efficacy for long-term avoidance of delayed intervention (DI) remains unknown. Progression definitions for triggering DI still lack standardization, but there is general consensus for including thresholds based on some or all "GLASS" criteria [Growth rate; Longest tumor diameter; Adverse biopsy histology; Stage (≥ cT3a); Symptomatology]. SRM biopsy during AS can diagnose benign neoplasm with high accuracy to negate the need for DI, particularly when corroborated by computed tomography (CT) enhancement-based approaches such as tumor:cortex Peak Early Enhancement Ratio (PEER) scoring. In contrast, the value for biopsy in adverse histology detection remains more controversial. Advanced imaging modalities, including 99mTc-sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT and [
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.