If you or someone you love is diagnosed with a small kidney tumor, you might wonder: is it better to watch and wait or to treat it right away? A new analysis of 78 studies offers some answers.
The review compared active surveillance (monitoring the tumor over time) with ablative therapy (using heat or cold to destroy the tumor). It found that people who had ablation had a higher overall survival rate: about 85% were alive after follow-up, compared with 74% for those on surveillance. But here's the twist: the chance of dying specifically from kidney cancer was nearly identical between the two groups (over 99% survival for surveillance vs 93.5% for ablation).
Both strategies had very low rates of the tumor spreading (less than 1%). And kidney function after treatment was similar. However, the data on kidney disease after surveillance was limited. The researchers caution that the survival difference might be due to patient selection (healthier people may have chosen ablation). So the choice may come down to personal preference and overall health.
