OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of laparoscopy on usage of partial nephrectomy (PN) by comparing national usage trends in patients undergoing surgery for localized renal tumors. METHODS: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we retrospectively examined trends in procedure usage from 1995 to 2007 for patients undergoing surgery for localized (stage I/II) renal masses. Procedures were classified as open radical nephrectomy (ORN), laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN), open partial nephrectomy (OPN), and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Patients were further stratified by tumor size (≤4 cm, >4- ≤7 cm, >7 cm). Data were primarily analyzed using logistic regressions. RESULTS: Patients (n = 11,689, mean age 74.4 ± 5.7 years, 56% male) with a mean tumor size of 4.7 ± 3.3 cm met the inclusion criteria. From 1995 to 2007, ORN rates decreased and for each year successive year patients were more likely to be treated with OPN (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.19), LRN (OR 1.44, CI 1.41-1.47), and LPN (OR 1.75, CI 1.68-1.83). Although the increased usage of OPN (7.5% vs 13.6%, P < .001) and LPN (0% vs 14.2%, P < .001) reached statistical significance, this was offset by a marked increase in LRN over the same time period (3.0% vs 43.0%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Despite increasing emphasis on nephron preservation, PN usage rates remain low. Compared with a 40% increase in LRN, use of PN increased by only 20% from 1995 to 2007. As a result, 72% of identified Medicare beneficiaries with localized tumors were managed with radical nephrectomy (RN) in 2007. The trade-off of minimally invasive surgery for nephron preservation may have adverse long-term consequences.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of laparoscopy on usage of partial nephrectomy (PN) by comparing national usage trends in patients undergoing surgery for localized renal tumors. METHODS: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we retrospectively examined trends in procedure usage from 1995 to 2007 for patients undergoing surgery for localized (stage I/II) renal masses. Procedures were classified as open radical nephrectomy (ORN), laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN), open partial nephrectomy (OPN), and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Patients were further stratified by tumor size (≤4 cm, >4- ≤7 cm, >7 cm). Data were primarily analyzed using logistic regressions. RESULTS:Patients (n = 11,689, mean age 74.4 ± 5.7 years, 56% male) with a mean tumor size of 4.7 ± 3.3 cm met the inclusion criteria. From 1995 to 2007, ORN rates decreased and for each year successive year patients were more likely to be treated with OPN (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.19), LRN (OR 1.44, CI 1.41-1.47), and LPN (OR 1.75, CI 1.68-1.83). Although the increased usage of OPN (7.5% vs 13.6%, P < .001) and LPN (0% vs 14.2%, P < .001) reached statistical significance, this was offset by a marked increase in LRN over the same time period (3.0% vs 43.0%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Despite increasing emphasis on nephron preservation, PN usage rates remain low. Compared with a 40% increase in LRN, use of PN increased by only 20% from 1995 to 2007. As a result, 72% of identified Medicare beneficiaries with localized tumors were managed with radical nephrectomy (RN) in 2007. The trade-off of minimally invasive surgery for nephron preservation may have adverse long-term consequences.
Authors: William C Huang; Andrew S Levey; Angel M Serio; Mark Snyder; Andrew J Vickers; Ganesh V Raj; Peter T Scardino; Paul Russo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: R V Clayman; L R Kavoussi; N J Soper; S M Dierks; S Meretyk; M D Darcy; F D Roemer; E D Pingleton; P G Thomson; S R Long Journal: J Urol Date: 1991-08 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: David S Morris; David C Miller; John M Hollingsworth; Rodney L Dunn; William W Roberts; J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David C Miller; John M Hollingsworth; Khaled S Hafez; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David M Golombos; Bilal Chughtai; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Dominique Thomas; Jialin Mao; Alexis Te; Padraic O'Malley; Douglas S Scherr; Joseph Del Pizzo; Jim C Hu; Art Sedrakyan Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Hung-Jui Tan; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Angela B Smith; Stephanie B Wheeler; William R Carpenter; Matthew E Nielsen Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sangjun Yoo; Dalsan You; In Gab Jeong; Cheryn Song; Bumsik Hong; Jun Hyuk Hong; Hanjong Ahn; Choung-Soo Kim Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Milan Hora; Viktor Eret; Ivan Trávníček; Kristýna Procházková; Tomáš Pitra; Olga Dolejšová; Ondřej Hes; Fredrik Petersson Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2016-09-22