OBJECTIVE: We evaluated survival outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for clinical T2 renal masses (cT2RM) controlling for R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A two-centre study comprised of 202 patients with cT2RM who underwent RN (122) or PN (80) between July 2002 and June 2012 (median follow-up 41.5 months). Kaplan-Meier analysis compared overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among the entire cohort and within categories of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of ≥10 and <10. Association between procedure and PFS and OS was analysed using Cox-proportional hazard. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between PN and RN in clinical T stage and R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores. For RN and PN, the 5-year PFS was 69.8% and 79.9% (P = 0.115), CSS was 82.5% and 86.7% (P = 0.407), and OS was 80% and 83.3% (P = 0.291). Cox regression showed no association between RN vs PN and PFS; a R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of ≥10 was associated with a shorter PFS (hazard ratio 6.69, P = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier analysis for RN vs PN showed no difference in PFS for entire cohort or within the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score categories of ≥10 and <10. The PFS was better for those with R.E.N.A.L nephrometry scores of <10 vs ≥10 (P < 0.001) and for cT2a vs cT2b tumours (P = 0.012). OS was no different between cT2a and cT2b tumours; patients with R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores of ≥10 were more likely to die from disease (P < 0.001) or any cause (P < 0.001) vs those with R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores of <10. CONCLUSIONS: PN may be oncologically effective for cT2RM. A R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score of ≥10 is negatively associated with OS among cT2RM compared with a score of <10 and provides additional risk assessment beyond clinical T stage. Further follow-up and prospective randomised investigation is requisite to confirm efficacy of PN for cT2RM.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated survival outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for clinical T2 renal masses (cT2RM) controlling for R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A two-centre study comprised of 202 patients with cT2RM who underwent RN (122) or PN (80) between July 2002 and June 2012 (median follow-up 41.5 months). Kaplan-Meier analysis compared overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among the entire cohort and within categories of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of ≥10 and <10. Association between procedure and PFS and OS was analysed using Cox-proportional hazard. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between PN and RN in clinical T stage and R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores. For RN and PN, the 5-year PFS was 69.8% and 79.9% (P = 0.115), CSS was 82.5% and 86.7% (P = 0.407), and OS was 80% and 83.3% (P = 0.291). Cox regression showed no association between RN vs PN and PFS; a R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of ≥10 was associated with a shorter PFS (hazard ratio 6.69, P = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier analysis for RN vs PN showed no difference in PFS for entire cohort or within the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score categories of ≥10 and <10. The PFS was better for those with R.E.N.A.L nephrometry scores of <10 vs ≥10 (P < 0.001) and for cT2a vs cT2b tumours (P = 0.012). OS was no different between cT2a and cT2b tumours; patients with R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores of ≥10 were more likely to die from disease (P < 0.001) or any cause (P < 0.001) vs those with R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores of <10. CONCLUSIONS: PN may be oncologically effective for cT2RM. A R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score of ≥10 is negatively associated with OS among cT2RM compared with a score of <10 and provides additional risk assessment beyond clinical T stage. Further follow-up and prospective randomised investigation is requisite to confirm efficacy of PN for cT2RM.
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: 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: Massimiliano Spaliviero; Bing Ying Poon; Omer Aras; Pier Luigi Di Paolo; Giuliano B Guglielmetti; Christian Z Coleman; Christoph A Karlo; Melanie L Bernstein; Daniel D Sjoberg; Paul Russo; Karim A Touijer; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-08-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Phillip M Pierorazio; Michael H Johnson; Hiten D Patel; Stephen M Sozio; Ritu Sharma; Emmanuel Iyoha; Eric B Bass; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sean P Stroup; Zachary A Hamilton; Michael T Marshall; Hak J Lee; Sean W Berquist; Abd-Elrahman S Hassan; Alp T Beksac; Charles A Field; Aaron Bloch; Fang Wan; Michelle L McDonald; Nishant D Patel; James O L'Esperance; Ithaar H Derweesh Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 4.226