Simon P Kim1, Steven C Campbell2, Inderbir Gill3, Brian R Lane4, Hein Van Poppel5, Marc C Smaldone6, Alessandro Volpe7, Alexander Kutikov8. 1. University Hospital Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Seidman Cancer Center, Urology Institute, Center of Healthcare Outcomes and Quality, Cleveland, OH, USA; Cancer Outcomes and Public Policy Effectiveness Research Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 2. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Spectrum Health Medical Group, Urology, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospitals of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 6. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. University of Eastern Piedmont, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy. 8. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: alexander.kutikov@fccc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While partial nephrectomy (PN) is the recommended treatment for many small renal masses, anatomically complex tumors necessitate a clear understanding of the potential risks and benefits of PN and radical nephrectomy (RN). OBJECTIVE: To critically review the comparative effectiveness evidence of PN versus RN; to describe key trade-offs involved in this treatment decision; and to highlight gaps in the current literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A collaborative critical review of the medical literature was conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Patients who undergo PN for an anatomically complex or large mass may be exposed to perioperative and potential oncologic risks that could be avoided if RN were performed, while patients who undergo RN may forgo long-term benefits of renal preservation. Decision-making regarding the optimal treatment with PN or RN among patients with anatomically complex or large renal mass is highly nuanced and must balance the risks and benefits of each approach. Currently, high-quality evidence on comparative effectiveness is sparse. Retrospective comparisons are plagued by selection biases, while the one existing prospective randomized trial, albeit imperfect, suggests that nephron-sparing surgery may not benefit all patients. CONCLUSIONS: For anatomically complex tumors, PN preserves renal parenchyma but may expose patients to higher perioperative risks than RN. The risks and benefits of each surgical approach must be better objectified for identification of patients most suitable for complex PN. A prospective randomized trial is warranted and would help in directing patient counseling. PATIENT SUMMARY: Treatment decisions for complex renal masses require shared decision-making regarding the risk trade-offs between partial and radical nephrectomy.
BACKGROUND: While partial nephrectomy (PN) is the recommended treatment for many small renal masses, anatomically complex tumors necessitate a clear understanding of the potential risks and benefits of PN and radical nephrectomy (RN). OBJECTIVE: To critically review the comparative effectiveness evidence of PN versus RN; to describe key trade-offs involved in this treatment decision; and to highlight gaps in the current literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A collaborative critical review of the medical literature was conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Patients who undergo PN for an anatomically complex or large mass may be exposed to perioperative and potential oncologic risks that could be avoided if RN were performed, while patients who undergo RN may forgo long-term benefits of renal preservation. Decision-making regarding the optimal treatment with PN or RN among patients with anatomically complex or large renal mass is highly nuanced and must balance the risks and benefits of each approach. Currently, high-quality evidence on comparative effectiveness is sparse. Retrospective comparisons are plagued by selection biases, while the one existing prospective randomized trial, albeit imperfect, suggests that nephron-sparing surgery may not benefit all patients. CONCLUSIONS: For anatomically complex tumors, PN preserves renal parenchyma but may expose patients to higher perioperative risks than RN. The risks and benefits of each surgical approach must be better objectified for identification of patients most suitable for complex PN. A prospective randomized trial is warranted and would help in directing patient counseling. PATIENT SUMMARY: Treatment decisions for complex renal masses require shared decision-making regarding the risk trade-offs between partial and radical nephrectomy.
Authors: Andrew G McIntosh; Daniel C Parker; Brian L Egleston; Robert G Uzzo; Mohammed Haseebuddin; Shreyas S Joshi; Rosalia Viterbo; Richard E Greenberg; David Y T Chen; Marc C Smaldone; Alexander Kutikov Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-06-30 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Francesco Greco; Riccardo Autorino; Vincenzo Altieri; Steven Campbell; Vincenzo Ficarra; Inderbir Gill; Alexander Kutikov; Alex Mottrie; Vincenzo Mirone; Hendrik van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 24.267
Authors: Jan Ebbing; Felix Menzel; Paolo Frumento; Kurt Miller; Bernhard Ralla; Tom Florian Fuller; Jonas Busch; Justin William Collins; Christofer Adding; Hans Helge Seifert; Peter Ardelt; Christian Wetterauer; Timm Westhoff; Carsten Kempkensteffen Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Janine Bacic; Tao Liu; R Houston Thompson; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich; Dragan Golijanin; Boris Gershman Journal: Urology Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 2.649