Shangqian Wang1, Chao Qin1, Zhihang Peng2, Qiang Cao1, Pu Li1, Pengfei Shao1, Xiaobing Ju1, Xiaoxin Meng1, Qiang Lu1, Jie Li1, Meilin Wang3, Zhengdong Zhang3, Min Gu1, Wei Zhang1, Changjun Yin4. 1. Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 3. Department of Molecular and Genetic Toxicology, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China. 4. Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029. China, Email: changjunyin@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, the clinical presentation of renal masses has evolved, where the rising incidence of small renal masses (SRMs) and concomitant minimal invasive treatments have led to noteworthy changes in paradigm of kidney cancer. This study was to perform a proportional meta-analysis of observational studies on perioperative complications and oncological outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: The US National Library of Medicine's life science database (Medline) and the Web of Science were exhaustly searched before August 1, 2013. Clinical stage 1 SRMs that were treated with PN or RFA were included, and perioperative complications and oncological outcomes of a total of 9 565 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients who underwent RFA were significantly older (P < 0.001). In the subanalysis of stage T1 tumors, the major complication rate of PN was greater than that of RFA (laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN)/robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN): 7.2%, open partial nephrectomy (OPN): 7.9%, RFA: 3.1%, both P < 0.001). Minor complications occurred more frequently after RFA (RFA: 13.8%, LPN/RPN: 7.5%, OPN: 9.5%, both P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, the relative risks for minor complications of RFA, compared with LPN and OPN, were 1.7-fold and 1.5-fold greater (both P < 0.01), respectively. Patients treated with RFA had a greater local progression rate than those treated by PN (RFA: 4.6%, LPN/RPN: 1.2%, OPN: 1.9%, both P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, the local tumor progression for RFA versus LPN/RPN and OPN were 4.5-fold and 3.1-fold greater, respectively (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current data illustrate that both PN and RFA are viable strategies for the treatment of SRMs. Compared with PN, RFA showed a greater risk of local tumor progression but a lower major complication rate, which is considered better for poor candidates. PN is with no doubt the golden treatment for SRMs, and LPN has been widely accepted as the first option for nephron-sparing surgery by experienced urologists. RFA may be the best option for select patients with significant comorbidity.
BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, the clinical presentation of renal masses has evolved, where the rising incidence of small renal masses (SRMs) and concomitant minimal invasive treatments have led to noteworthy changes in paradigm of kidney cancer. This study was to perform a proportional meta-analysis of observational studies on perioperative complications and oncological outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: The US National Library of Medicine's life science database (Medline) and the Web of Science were exhaustly searched before August 1, 2013. Clinical stage 1 SRMs that were treated with PN or RFA were included, and perioperative complications and oncological outcomes of a total of 9 565 patients were analyzed. RESULTS:Patients who underwent RFA were significantly older (P < 0.001). In the subanalysis of stage T1 tumors, the major complication rate of PN was greater than that of RFA (laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN)/robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN): 7.2%, open partial nephrectomy (OPN): 7.9%, RFA: 3.1%, both P < 0.001). Minor complications occurred more frequently after RFA (RFA: 13.8%, LPN/RPN: 7.5%, OPN: 9.5%, both P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, the relative risks for minor complications of RFA, compared with LPN and OPN, were 1.7-fold and 1.5-fold greater (both P < 0.01), respectively. Patients treated with RFA had a greater local progression rate than those treated by PN (RFA: 4.6%, LPN/RPN: 1.2%, OPN: 1.9%, both P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, the local tumor progression for RFA versus LPN/RPN and OPN were 4.5-fold and 3.1-fold greater, respectively (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current data illustrate that both PN and RFA are viable strategies for the treatment of SRMs. Compared with PN, RFA showed a greater risk of local tumor progression but a lower major complication rate, which is considered better for poor candidates. PN is with no doubt the golden treatment for SRMs, and LPN has been widely accepted as the first option for nephron-sparing surgery by experienced urologists. RFA may be the best option for select patients with significant comorbidity.
Authors: Susie L Hu; Anthony Chang; Mark A Perazella; Mark D Okusa; Edgar A Jaimes; Robert H Weiss Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 10.121