BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) are standard treatments for a small renal mass. Retrospective studies suggest an overall survival (OS) advantage, however a randomized phase 3 trial suggests otherwise. The effects of both surgical modalities on OS were evaluated compared with controls. METHODS: A matched cohort study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset. Individuals treated with PN or RN for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) measuring ≤4 cm were compared with 2 control groups (non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (BCC) and noncancer controls (NCC). Using a greedy algorithm, RCC groups were matched with controls by demographics and comorbidities. OS for surgical groups and controls were compared. The cause of death was evaluated for cancer groups when differences in OS were noted. RESULTS: Patients undergoing PN and RN were matched with controls. All cancer groups had >95% 10-year cancer-specific survival (CSS). Median OS was similar between RN (9.05 years) and BCC (8.67 years; P = .067) and NCC (8.77 years; P = .49). Median OS was improved for PN (10.45 years) compared with BCC (8.75 years; P<.001) and NCC controls (8.76 years; P<.001). A multivariate Cox hazards model demonstrated that PN improved OS compared with NCC (hazard ratio, 1.257; P<.001) and BCC (hazard ratio, 1.364; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: RN patients had similar OS compared with controls, suggesting that this treatment modality does not compromise survival. Patients undergoing PN had improved OS compared with controls, suggesting possible selection bias. The apparent survival advantage conferred by PN in SEER-Medicare case series is likely the result of selection bias involving unmeasured confounders.
BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) are standard treatments for a small renal mass. Retrospective studies suggest an overall survival (OS) advantage, however a randomized phase 3 trial suggests otherwise. The effects of both surgical modalities on OS were evaluated compared with controls. METHODS: A matched cohort study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset. Individuals treated with PN or RN for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) measuring ≤4 cm were compared with 2 control groups (non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (BCC) and noncancer controls (NCC). Using a greedy algorithm, RCC groups were matched with controls by demographics and comorbidities. OS for surgical groups and controls were compared. The cause of death was evaluated for cancer groups when differences in OS were noted. RESULTS:Patients undergoing PN and RN were matched with controls. All cancer groups had >95% 10-year cancer-specific survival (CSS). Median OS was similar between RN (9.05 years) and BCC (8.67 years; P = .067) and NCC (8.77 years; P = .49). Median OS was improved for PN (10.45 years) compared with BCC (8.75 years; P<.001) and NCC controls (8.76 years; P<.001). A multivariate Cox hazards model demonstrated that PN improved OS compared with NCC (hazard ratio, 1.257; P<.001) and BCC (hazard ratio, 1.364; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: RN patients had similar OS compared with controls, suggesting that this treatment modality does not compromise survival. Patients undergoing PN had improved OS compared with controls, suggesting possible selection bias. The apparent survival advantage conferred by PN in SEER-Medicare case series is likely the result of selection bias involving unmeasured confounders.
Authors: Matthew R Danzig; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; Mohamad E Allaf; James M McKiernan; Phillip M Pierorazio Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.092
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: Maria C Mir; Nicola Pavan; Umberto Capitanio; Alessandro Antonelli; Ithaar Derweesh; Oscar Rodriguez-Faba; Estefania Linares; Toshio Takagi; Koon H Rha; Christian Fiori; Tobias Maurer; Chao Zang; Alexandre Mottrie; Paolo Umari; Jean-Alexandre Long; Gaelle Fiard; Cosimo De Nunzio; Andrea Tubaro; Andrew T Tracey; Matteo Ferro; Ottavio De Cobelli; Salvatore Micali; Luigi Bevilacqua; João Torres; Luigi Schips; Roberto Castellucci; Ryan Dobbs; Giuseppe Quarto; Pierluigi Bove; Antonio Celia; Bernardino De Concilio; Carlo Trombetta; Tommaso Silvestri; Alessandro Larcher; Francesco Montorsi; Carlotta Palumbo; Maria Furlan; Ahmet Bindayi; Zachary Hamilton; Alberto Breda; Joan Palou; Alfredo Aguilera; Kazunari Tanabe; Ali Raheem; Thomas Amiel; Bo Yang; Estevão Lima; Simone Crivellaro; Sisto Perdona; Caterina Gregorio; Giulia Barbati; Francesco Porpiglia; Riccardo Autorino Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Adam D Talenfeld; Renee L Gennarelli; Elena B Elkin; Coral L Atoria; Jeremy C Durack; William C Huang; Sharon W Kwan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Jinhai Huo; Karim Chamie; Marc C Smaldone; Christopher D Kosarek; Justin E Fang; Leslie A Ynalvez; Simon P Kim; Karen E Hoffman; Sharon H Giordano; Brian F Chapin Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lin Li; Wei Ling Lau; Connie M Rhee; Kevin Harley; Csaba P Kovesdy; John J Sim; Steve Jacobsen; Anthony Chang; Jaime Landman; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 28.314
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