PURPOSE: To compare the oncologic outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for cT1-2/N0 renal tumors and pathologically confirmed pT1-pT3a-pNx clear cell (cc)-renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Few studies compared the oncologic outcomes of PN and RN for renal tumors >7 cm. METHODS: A prospective "renal cancer" database was queried for cT<3-cN0-cM0 and pT1a-pT3a-pNx cc-RCC. Out of 1650 cases treated between 2001 and 2013, 921 were cc-RCC and 666 met inclusion criteria, 232 of which treated with minimally invasive RN and 434 with MIPN. A 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was employed to minimize the selection bias of non-random assignment of patients to PN as opposed to RN. Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the oncologic outcomes of the PSM cohorts. Survival rates were computed at 2, 5, and 10 years after surgery, and the log-rank test was applied to assess statistical significance between the two PSM groups. RESULTS: RN tumors were significantly larger (p < 0.001), with higher pT stages (p < 0.001), higher Fuhrman grades (p = 0.002) and a more frequent sarcomatoid differentiation (p = 0.04). After applying the PSM analysis, the two cohorts of 155 RN and 155 PN cases did not differ for all clinical and pathologic covariates (all p ≥ 0.32). PN and RN cohorts displayed comparable 5-year metastasis-free survival (88.9 vs 89.9 %, p = 0.811), local recurrence-free survival (94.2 vs 95.9 %, p = 0.283), overall survival (94.5 vs 96.8 %, p = 0.419) and cancer-specific survival (96 vs 98.6 %, p = 0.907) rates. CONCLUSIONS: PN and RN for patients with cc-RCC larger than 7 cm provided equivalent oncologic outcomes. Safety and reproducibility of our findings should be further investigated in larger multicentric cohorts.
PURPOSE: To compare the oncologic outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for cT1-2/N0 renal tumors and pathologically confirmed pT1-pT3a-pNx clear cell (cc)-renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Few studies compared the oncologic outcomes of PN and RN for renal tumors >7 cm. METHODS: A prospective "renal cancer" database was queried for cT<3-cN0-cM0 and pT1a-pT3a-pNx cc-RCC. Out of 1650 cases treated between 2001 and 2013, 921 were cc-RCC and 666 met inclusion criteria, 232 of which treated with minimally invasive RN and 434 with MIPN. A 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was employed to minimize the selection bias of non-random assignment of patients to PN as opposed to RN. Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the oncologic outcomes of the PSM cohorts. Survival rates were computed at 2, 5, and 10 years after surgery, and the log-rank test was applied to assess statistical significance between the two PSM groups. RESULTS: RN tumors were significantly larger (p < 0.001), with higher pT stages (p < 0.001), higher Fuhrman grades (p = 0.002) and a more frequent sarcomatoid differentiation (p = 0.04). After applying the PSM analysis, the two cohorts of 155 RN and 155 PN cases did not differ for all clinical and pathologic covariates (all p ≥ 0.32). PN and RN cohorts displayed comparable 5-year metastasis-free survival (88.9 vs 89.9 %, p = 0.811), local recurrence-free survival (94.2 vs 95.9 %, p = 0.283), overall survival (94.5 vs 96.8 %, p = 0.419) and cancer-specific survival (96 vs 98.6 %, p = 0.907) rates. CONCLUSIONS: PN and RN for patients with cc-RCC larger than 7 cm provided equivalent oncologic outcomes. Safety and reproducibility of our findings should be further investigated in larger multicentric cohorts.
Authors: G Simone; C De Nunzio; M Ferriero; L Cindolo; S Brookman-May; R Papalia; I Sperduti; D Collura; C Leonardo; U Anceschi; G Tuderti; L Misuraca; O Dalpiaz; S Hatzl; M Lodde; E Trenti; A L Pastore; G Palleschi; G Lotrecchiano; L Salzano; A Carbone; O De Cobelli; A Tubaro; L Schips; R Zigeuner; J Tostain; M May; S Guaglianone; G Muto; M Gallucci Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Frederik C Roos; Walburgis Brenner; Melanie Müller; Claudia Schubert; Wolfgang J Jäger; Joachim W Thüroff; Christian Hampel Journal: Urology Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jens Hansen; Maxine Sun; Marco Bianchi; Michael Rink; Zhe Tian; Nawar Hanna; Malek Meskawi; Jan Schmitges; Shahrokh F Shariat; Felix K-H Chun; Paul Perrotte; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Urology Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Rodney H Breau; Paul L Crispen; Rafael E Jimenez; Christine M Lohse; Michael L Blute; Bradley C Leibovich Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brian R Lane; Shay Golan; Scott Eggener; Conrad M Tobert; Richard J Kahnoski; Alexander Kutikov; Marc Smaldone; Christopher M Whelan; Arieh Shalhav; Robert G Uzzo Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M W W Janssen; J Linxweiler; S Terwey; S Rugge; C-H Ohlmann; F Becker; Ch Thomas; A Neisius; J W Thüroff; S Siemer; M Stöckle; F C Roos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ricardo G Alvim; Amy L Tin; Lucas Nogueira; Nathan C Wong; Renato C Fonseca; Daniel D Sjoberg; A Ari Hakimi; Karim A Touijer; Paul Russo; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: Urology Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 2.649