BACKGROUND: Although partial nephrectomy (PN) has been associated with improved renal function compared with radical nephrectomy (RN) for renal cell carcinoma, the impact on overall survival (OS) remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate comparative OS and renal function in patients following PN and RN for a renal mass where malignancy was not a confounding factor. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the Mayo Clinic Nephrectomy Registry, we retrospectively identified 442 patients with unilateral sporadic benign renal masses treated surgically with PN or RN between 1980 and 2008. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measures were OS and the incidence of new-onset stage IV chronic kidney disease (CKD), determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox models were used to test the association of nephrectomy type with these outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 206 and 236 patients with benign renal masses were surgically treated with RN and PN, respectively. Patients who underwent RN were older (median age: 67 vs 64 yr; p=0.02) and had larger tumors (median size: 5.0 vs 2.7 cm; p<0.001). Median follow-up for patients still alive at last follow-up was 8.3 yr (range: 0.1-27.9 yr). Estimated OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) rates at 10 and 15 yr were 69% (62-76%) and 53% (45-62%) for RN compared with 80% (73-87%) and 74% (65-83%) following PN (p=0.032). After adjusting for covariates of interest, patients treated with RN were significantly more likely to die from any cause (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.83; p=0.023) or develop stage IV CKD (HR: 4.23; 95% CI, 1.80-9.93; p<0.001) compared with patients who underwent PN. Limitations include the retrospective design, selection bias for surgical approach, and referral bias to a tertiary care facility. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that PN may confer a clinical benefit for improved renal function and better OS compared with RN after excluding the confounding effect of malignancy.
BACKGROUND: Although partial nephrectomy (PN) has been associated with improved renal function compared with radical nephrectomy (RN) for renal cell carcinoma, the impact on overall survival (OS) remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate comparative OS and renal function in patients following PN and RN for a renal mass where malignancy was not a confounding factor. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the Mayo Clinic Nephrectomy Registry, we retrospectively identified 442 patients with unilateral sporadic benign renal masses treated surgically with PN or RN between 1980 and 2008. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measures were OS and the incidence of new-onset stage IV chronic kidney disease (CKD), determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox models were used to test the association of nephrectomy type with these outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 206 and 236 patients with benign renal masses were surgically treated with RN and PN, respectively. Patients who underwent RN were older (median age: 67 vs 64 yr; p=0.02) and had larger tumors (median size: 5.0 vs 2.7 cm; p<0.001). Median follow-up for patients still alive at last follow-up was 8.3 yr (range: 0.1-27.9 yr). Estimated OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) rates at 10 and 15 yr were 69% (62-76%) and 53% (45-62%) for RN compared with 80% (73-87%) and 74% (65-83%) following PN (p=0.032). After adjusting for covariates of interest, patients treated with RN were significantly more likely to die from any cause (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.83; p=0.023) or develop stage IV CKD (HR: 4.23; 95% CI, 1.80-9.93; p<0.001) compared with patients who underwent PN. Limitations include the retrospective design, selection bias for surgical approach, and referral bias to a tertiary care facility. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that PN may confer a clinical benefit for improved renal function and better OS compared with RN after excluding the confounding effect of malignancy.
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: Fernando P Secin; Octavio A Castillo; José J Rozanec; Marcelo Featherston; Pablo Holst; José Cocisfran Alves Milfont; Patricio García Marchiñena; Alberto Jurado Navarro; Anamaría Autrán; Agustín R Rovegno; Oscar Rodríguez Faba; Joan Palou; Victor Teixeira Dubeux; Luciano Nuñez Bragayrac; Rene Sotelo; Stenio Zequi; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Mario Álvarez-Maestro; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro; Gustavo Villoldo; Alberto Villaronga; Diego Abreu Clavijo; Ricardo Decia; Rodrigo Frota; Ivar Vidal-Mora; Diana Finkelstein; Juan I Monzó Gardiner; Oscar Schatloff; Andres Hernández-Porrás; Félix Santaella-Torres; Emilio T Quesada; Rodolfo Sánchez-Salas; Hugo Dávila; Humberto Villavicencio Mavric Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Daniel Vergho; Maximilian Burger; Moritz Schrammel; Sabine Brookman-May; Michael Gierth; Bernd Hoschke; Kai Lopau; Christian Gilfrich; Hubertus Riedmiller; Ingmar Wolff; Matthias May Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-10-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Frank Kunath; Stefanie Schmidt; Laura-Maria Krabbe; Arkadiusz Miernik; Philipp Dahm; Anne Cleves; Mario Walther; Nils Kroeger Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-09
Authors: Joseph B Song; Jeremiah J Morrissey; Jonathan M Mobley; Karen G Figenshau; Joel M Vetter; Sam B Bhayani; Evan D Kharasch; Robert Sherburne Figenshau Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Andrew Silagy; Emily Zabor; Roy Mano; Renzo DiNatale; Julian Marcon; Mahyar Kashani; Kyle Blum; Eduard Reznik; Edgar Jaimes; Jonathan Coleman; A Ari Hakimi; Paul Russo Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 1.862