OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment patterns of solid renal masses according to the quantifiable anatomic features using nephrometry. The treatment of localized renal cell carcinoma remains overly subjective. The R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus in millimeters, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score quantifies the salient characteristics of renal mass anatomy in an objective and reproducible manner. METHODS: Nephrometry scores were available in 615 patients in our prospective kidney tumor database (2000-2010). The nephrometry score sum and its individual component scores were analyzed to determine their relationship to treatment approach. RESULTS: The median age, age-adjusted Charlson co-morbidity index, and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 60 years (range 25-89), 2 (range 0-10), and 80.5 mL/min (range 5.1-120.0), respectively. Increasing tumor complexity, as measured by a greater overall nephrometry score was associated with both radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy (P < .0001). Compared with patients who underwent partial nephrectomy, the patients treated with radical nephrectomy had a significantly greater size (R), central proximity (N), and location (L) component scores (P < .001). Furthermore, tumors treated with radical nephrectomy were more often hilar (P < .001). Similarly, compared with minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (laparoscopic or robotic), open partial nephrectomy was associated with an increasing individual component score for size, endophytic, and central proximity to the collecting system (P < .001) and nonpolar location (P = .016). CONCLUSION: The R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score standardizes the reporting of solid renal masses and appears to effectively stratify by treatment type. Although only 1 part of the treatment decision-making process, nephrometry aids in objectifying previously subjective measures. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment patterns of solid renal masses according to the quantifiable anatomic features using nephrometry. The treatment of localized renal cell carcinoma remains overly subjective. The R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus in millimeters, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score quantifies the salient characteristics of renal mass anatomy in an objective and reproducible manner. METHODS: Nephrometry scores were available in 615 patients in our prospective kidney tumor database (2000-2010). The nephrometry score sum and its individual component scores were analyzed to determine their relationship to treatment approach. RESULTS: The median age, age-adjusted Charlson co-morbidity index, and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 60 years (range 25-89), 2 (range 0-10), and 80.5 mL/min (range 5.1-120.0), respectively. Increasing tumor complexity, as measured by a greater overall nephrometry score was associated with both radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy (P < .0001). Compared with patients who underwent partial nephrectomy, the patients treated with radical nephrectomy had a significantly greater size (R), central proximity (N), and location (L) component scores (P < .001). Furthermore, tumors treated with radical nephrectomy were more often hilar (P < .001). Similarly, compared with minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (laparoscopic or robotic), open partial nephrectomy was associated with an increasing individual component score for size, endophytic, and central proximity to the collecting system (P < .001) and nonpolar location (P = .016). CONCLUSION: The R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score standardizes the reporting of solid renal masses and appears to effectively stratify by treatment type. Although only 1 part of the treatment decision-making process, nephrometry aids in objectifying previously subjective measures. Copyright Â
Authors: Steven C Campbell; Andrew C Novick; Arie Belldegrun; Michael L Blute; George K Chow; Ithaar H Derweesh; Martha M Faraday; Jihad H Kaouk; Raymond J Leveillee; Surena F Matin; Paul Russo; Robert G Uzzo Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Louis R Kavoussi; Brian R Lane; Michael L Blute; Denise Babineau; J Roberto Colombo; Igor Frank; Sompol Permpongkosol; Christopher J Weight; Jihad H Kaouk; Michael W Kattan; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Stephen A Boorjian; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Eugene D Kwon; John C Cheville; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Katherine Mallin; Jamie Ritchey; Jacqueline D Villalta; Peter R Carroll; Christopher J Kane Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Reza Mehrazin; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov; Karen Ruth; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Essel Dulaimi; Serge Ginzburg; Philip H Abbosh; Timothy Ito; Anthony T Corcoran; David Y T Chen; Marc C Smaldone; Tahseen Al-Saleem Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Nicole Wake; Temitope Rude; Stella K Kang; Michael D Stifelman; James F Borin; Daniel K Sodickson; William C Huang; Hersh Chandarana Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-05
Authors: Massimiliano Spaliviero; Bing Ying Poon; Christoph A Karlo; Giuliano B Guglielmetti; Pier Luigi Di Paolo; Renato Beluco Corradi; Alexandre G Martin-Malburet; Felix Campos-Juanatey; Eva Escudero-Fontano; Daniel D Sjoberg; Paul Russo; Jonathan A Coleman; Oguz Akin; Karim A Touijer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nissar Ahmed Sheikh; Mohammed Hassan Khan; Sanjay Pillai; Stephen Lang; Ghulam Nabi Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Tobias Klatte; Vincenzo Ficarra; Christian Gratzke; Jihad Kaouk; Alexander Kutikov; Veronica Macchi; Alexandre Mottrie; Francesco Porpiglia; James Porter; Craig G Rogers; Paul Russo; R Houston Thompson; Robert G Uzzo; Christopher G Wood; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 20.096