PURPOSE: Radical nephrectomy has traditionally been preferred to partial nephrectomy in patients with localized renal cell cancer because of its simplicity and established cancer control. Recent data suggest that these patients have significant competing risks of death, some of which may be increased by chronic renal insufficiency. Therefore, we compared overall survival, cancer specific survival and cardiac specific survival in patients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy for cT1b tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1999 to 2006, 1,004 patients with renal masses between 4 and 7 cm underwent extirpative surgery, partial nephrectomy (524) or radical nephrectomy (480). We generated a propensity model based on preoperative patient characteristics, and then modeled survival with the additional variables of pathological stage and new baseline renal function. RESULTS: On multivariate analysis cancer specific survival was equivalent for patients treated with partial nephrectomy or radical nephrectomy. Those patients undergoing radical nephrectomy lost significantly more renal function than those undergoing partial nephrectomy. The average excess loss of renal function observed with radical nephrectomy was associated with a 25% (95% CI 3-73) increased risk of cardiac death and 17% (95% CI 12-27) increased risk of death from any cause on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy offers cancer specific survival equivalent to that of radical nephrectomy and is technically feasible in at least 50% of patients with cT1b tumors. Preservation of renal function was significantly better in patients treated with partial nephrectomy. Postoperative renal insufficiency was a significant independent predictor of overall and cardiovascular specific survival, and efforts should be made to limit the renal function loss associated with surgery for localized renal masses. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Radical nephrectomy has traditionally been preferred to partial nephrectomy in patients with localized renal cell cancer because of its simplicity and established cancer control. Recent data suggest that these patients have significant competing risks of death, some of which may be increased by chronic renal insufficiency. Therefore, we compared overall survival, cancer specific survival and cardiac specific survival in patients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy for cT1b tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1999 to 2006, 1,004 patients with renal masses between 4 and 7 cm underwent extirpative surgery, partial nephrectomy (524) or radical nephrectomy (480). We generated a propensity model based on preoperative patient characteristics, and then modeled survival with the additional variables of pathological stage and new baseline renal function. RESULTS: On multivariate analysis cancer specific survival was equivalent for patients treated with partial nephrectomy or radical nephrectomy. Those patients undergoing radical nephrectomy lost significantly more renal function than those undergoing partial nephrectomy. The average excess loss of renal function observed with radical nephrectomy was associated with a 25% (95% CI 3-73) increased risk of cardiac death and 17% (95% CI 12-27) increased risk of death from any cause on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy offers cancer specific survival equivalent to that of radical nephrectomy and is technically feasible in at least 50% of patients with cT1b tumors. Preservation of renal function was significantly better in patients treated with partial nephrectomy. Postoperative renal insufficiency was a significant independent predictor of overall and cardiovascular specific survival, and efforts should be made to limit the renal function loss associated with surgery for localized renal masses. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jonathan D Harper; Anup Shah; Stuart B Mitchell; Yak-Nam Wang; Frank Starr; Michael R Bailey; Lawrence A Crum Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-09-10 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov; Katie Hrebinko; Reza Mehrazin; Anthony Corcoran; Serge Ginzburg; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Marc C Smaldone Journal: Urology Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Matthew Mossanen; Jason Izard; Jonathan L Wright; Jonathan D Harper; Michael P Porter; Kenn B Daratha; Sarah K Holt; John L Gore Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 6.860