PURPOSE: The incidental detection of early-stage kidney tumors is increasing in the United States. Nephron-sparing approaches (NS) to managing these tumors are equivalent to radical nephrectomy (RN) in oncologic outcomes and have a decreased impact on renal function. Our objective was to evaluate trends in the use of NS over the past decade and the socioeconomic factors associated with its use. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients with stage I kidney cancer between 2000 and 2008. Patients were classified by the type of surgery as NS (local destruction and local excision) or RN. Patients were further categorized by age, race, insurance status, and income. Log-binomial regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) for the proportion of NS to RN according to demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2008, there were 142,194 cases of kidney cancer reported to the NCDB. In these cases, 43,034 (30.3 %) patients had NS, and 86,431 (60.78 %) patients had RN. The prevalence of NS increased 10 % per year (PR = 1.10, p < 0.0001)-from 20.0 % in 2000 to 45.1 % in 2008. Older age, lower income, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and lack of health insurance were associated with a decreased prevalence of NS. CONCLUSIONS: NS as a treatment for stage I kidney cancer has increased steadily since 2000. Age, racial, and socioeconomic differences may exist in the utilization of NS. Additional analyses, with patient level data, are required to address the independent significance of these variables in an effort to develop strategies to mitigate these potential disparities.
PURPOSE: The incidental detection of early-stage kidney tumors is increasing in the United States. Nephron-sparing approaches (NS) to managing these tumors are equivalent to radical nephrectomy (RN) in oncologic outcomes and have a decreased impact on renal function. Our objective was to evaluate trends in the use of NS over the past decade and the socioeconomic factors associated with its use. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients with stage I kidney cancer between 2000 and 2008. Patients were classified by the type of surgery as NS (local destruction and local excision) or RN. Patients were further categorized by age, race, insurance status, and income. Log-binomial regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) for the proportion of NS to RN according to demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2008, there were 142,194 cases of kidney cancer reported to the NCDB. In these cases, 43,034 (30.3 %) patients had NS, and 86,431 (60.78 %) patients had RN. The prevalence of NS increased 10 % per year (PR = 1.10, p < 0.0001)-from 20.0 % in 2000 to 45.1 % in 2008. Older age, lower income, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and lack of health insurance were associated with a decreased prevalence of NS. CONCLUSIONS:NS as a treatment for stage I kidney cancer has increased steadily since 2000. Age, racial, and socioeconomic differences may exist in the utilization of NS. Additional analyses, with patient level data, are required to address the independent significance of these variables in an effort to develop strategies to mitigate these potential disparities.
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: 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: Christopher J Kane; Katherine Mallin; Jamie Ritchey; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Matt Kaag; Andrew Vickers; Shilajit Kundu; Melanie Bernstein; William Lowrance; David Galvin; Guido Dalbagni; Karim Touijer; Paul Russo Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-01-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jessica D Albano; Elizabeth Ward; Ahmedin Jemal; Robert Anderson; Vilma E Cokkinides; Taylor Murray; Jane Henley; Jonathan Liff; Michael J Thun Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: John T Leppert; Harsha R Mittakanti; I-Chun Thomas; Remy W Lamberts; Geoffrey A Sonn; Benjamin I Chung; Eila C Skinner; Todd H Wagner; Glenn M Chertow; James D Brooks Journal: Urology Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ulka Vaishampayan; Hema Vankayala; Fawn D Vigneau; William Quarshie; Brenda Dickow; Supraja Chalasani; Kendra Schwartz Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2013-09-28 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Elizabeth Golembiewski; Katie S Allen; Amber M Blackmon; Rachel J Hinrichs; Joshua R Vest Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2019-10-07
Authors: Alejandro Cruz; Faith Dickerson; Kathryn R Pulling; Kyle Garcia; Francine C Gachupin; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Juan Chipollini; Benjamin R Lee; Ken Batai Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 3.390