Pascal Mouracade1, Onder Kara1, Julien Dagenais1, M J Maurice1, R J Nelson1, Ercan Malkoc1, J H Kaouk2. 1. Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. kaoukj@ccf.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate perioperative morbidity, oncological outcome and predictors of pT3a upstaging after partial nephrectomy (PN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 1042 patients who underwent PN for cT1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma between 2007 and 2015. A total of 113 cT1 patients were upstaged to pT3a, while 929 were staged as pT1. Demographic, perioperative and pathological variables were reviewed. We compared the clinico-pathological characteristics, perioperative morbidity and oncological outcomes between pT3a and pT1 groups. Multivariate regression evaluates variables associated with T3a upstaging. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival analyses were performed. Survival curves were compared using log-rank test. RESULTS: The pT3a tumors were high complexity tumors (median RENAL score 8 vs. 7, p < 0.01), higher hilar (h) location (27.5 vs. 14.8%, p < 0.01), higher grade (57.5 vs. 38.2%, p < 0.01), and higher positive surgical margins (18.6 vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01. Patients with pT3a had a higher estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, ischemia time and overall complications, though there were no differences in median e-GFR decline and major (Grade III-V) complications. Five-year RFS was 78.5% for pT3a group vs. 94.6% for pT1 group (log-rank p < 0.01). Male gender (OR 2.2, p < 0.01), and R.E.N.A.L. score (OR 2.3, p = 0.01) were preoperative predictors of upstaging. We acknowledge limitations in our study, most are inherent problems of retrospective studies. CONCLUSION: Perioperative morbidity, after partial nephrectomy, is acceptable in cT1/pT3 tumors in comparison to cT1/pT1; however, upstaged patients had a worse oncological outcome. cT1/pT3a tumors are associated with adverse clinico-pathological features. Preoperative risk predictors of upstaging were higher R.E.N.A.L. score and male gender.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate perioperative morbidity, oncological outcome and predictors of pT3a upstaging after partial nephrectomy (PN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 1042 patients who underwent PN for cT1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma between 2007 and 2015. A total of 113 cT1patients were upstaged to pT3a, while 929 were staged as pT1. Demographic, perioperative and pathological variables were reviewed. We compared the clinico-pathological characteristics, perioperative morbidity and oncological outcomes between pT3a and pT1 groups. Multivariate regression evaluates variables associated with T3a upstaging. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival analyses were performed. Survival curves were compared using log-rank test. RESULTS: The pT3a tumors were high complexity tumors (median RENAL score 8 vs. 7, p < 0.01), higher hilar (h) location (27.5 vs. 14.8%, p < 0.01), higher grade (57.5 vs. 38.2%, p < 0.01), and higher positive surgical margins (18.6 vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01. Patients with pT3a had a higher estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, ischemia time and overall complications, though there were no differences in median e-GFR decline and major (Grade III-V) complications. Five-year RFS was 78.5% for pT3a group vs. 94.6% for pT1 group (log-rank p < 0.01). Male gender (OR 2.2, p < 0.01), and R.E.N.A.L. score (OR 2.3, p = 0.01) were preoperative predictors of upstaging. We acknowledge limitations in our study, most are inherent problems of retrospective studies. CONCLUSION: Perioperative morbidity, after partial nephrectomy, is acceptable in cT1/pT3tumors in comparison to cT1/pT1; however, upstaged patients had a worse oncological outcome. cT1/pT3a tumors are associated with adverse clinico-pathological features. Preoperative risk predictors of upstaging were higher R.E.N.A.L. score and male gender.
Authors: William W Roberts; Sam B Bhayani; Mohamad E Allaf; Theresa Y Chan; Louis R Kavoussi; Thomas W Jarrett Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher J Weight; Casey Lythgoe; Raman Unnikrishnan; Brian R Lane; Steven C Campbell; Amr F Fergany Journal: Urology Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone; Brian L Egleston; Brandon J Manley; Daniel J Canter; Jay Simhan; Stephen A Boorjian; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Michael A Gorin; Mark W Ball; Phillip M Pierorazio; Youssef S Tanagho; Sam B Bhayani; Jihad H Kaouk; Craig G Rogers; Michael D Stifelman; Ali Khalifeh; Ramesh Kumar; Ganesh Sivarajan; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Connor M Forbes; Ricardo A Rendon; Antonio Finelli; Anil Kapoor; Ronald B Moore; Rodney H Breau; Louis Lacombe; Jun Kawakami; Darrel E Drachenberg; Stephen E Pautler; Michael M A Jewett; Olli Saarela; Zhihui Liu; Simon Tanguay; Peter C Black Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Vitaly Margulis; Pheroze Tamboli; Surena F Matin; Matthew Meisner; David A Swanson; Christopher G Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jongchan Kim; Jee Soo Park; Ji Eun Heo; Ahmed Elghiaty; Won Sik Jang; Koon Ho Rha; Young Deuk Choi; Won Sik Ham Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: Rodolfo Borges Dos Reis; Rafael Neuppmann Feres; Marcelo Cartapatti da Silva; Valdair Francisco Muglia; Antonio Antunes Rodrigues Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.050