Hiten D Patel1, Phillip M Pierorazio2, Michael H Johnson2, Ritu Sharma3, Emmanuel Iyoha3, Mohamad E Allaf2, Eric B Bass3,4,5, Stephen M Sozio4,6. 1. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Department of Urology, and hitenpatel@jhmi.edu. 2. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Department of Urology, and. 3. Health Policy and Management and. 4. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Departments of. 5. Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; and. 6. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Management strategies for localized renal masses suspicious for renal cell carcinoma include radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation, and active surveillance. Given favorable survival outcomes across strategies, renal preservation is often of paramount concern. To inform clinical decision making, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing renal functional outcomes for radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation, and active surveillance. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1997 to May 1, 2015 to identify comparative studies reporting renal functional outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed for change in eGFR, incidence of CKD, and AKI. RESULTS: We found 58 articles reporting on relevant renal functional outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that final eGFR fell 10.5 ml/min per 1.73 m2 lower for radical nephrectomy compared with partial nephrectomy and indicated higher risk of CKD stage 3 or worse (relative risk, 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.97 to 3.32) and ESRD for radical nephrectomy compared with partial nephrectomy. Overall risk of AKI was similar for radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy, but studies suggested higher risk for radical nephrectomy among T1a tumors (relative risk, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.66). In general, similar findings of worse renal function for radical nephrectomy compared with thermal ablation and active surveillance were observed. No differences in renal functional outcomes were observed for partial nephrectomy versus thermal ablation. The overall rate of ESRD was low among all management strategies (0.4%-2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Renal functional implications varied across management strategies for localized renal masses, with worse postoperative renal function for patients undergoing radical nephrectomy compared with other strategies and similar outcomes for partial nephrectomy and thermal ablation. Further attention is needed to quantify the changes in renal function associated with active surveillance and nephron-sparing approaches for patients with preexisting CKD.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Management strategies for localized renal masses suspicious for renal cell carcinoma include radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation, and active surveillance. Given favorable survival outcomes across strategies, renal preservation is often of paramount concern. To inform clinical decision making, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing renal functional outcomes for radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation, and active surveillance. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1997 to May 1, 2015 to identify comparative studies reporting renal functional outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed for change in eGFR, incidence of CKD, and AKI. RESULTS: We found 58 articles reporting on relevant renal functional outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that final eGFR fell 10.5 ml/min per 1.73 m2 lower for radical nephrectomy compared with partial nephrectomy and indicated higher risk of CKD stage 3 or worse (relative risk, 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.97 to 3.32) and ESRD for radical nephrectomy compared with partial nephrectomy. Overall risk of AKI was similar for radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy, but studies suggested higher risk for radical nephrectomy among T1atumors (relative risk, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.66). In general, similar findings of worse renal function for radical nephrectomy compared with thermal ablation and active surveillance were observed. No differences in renal functional outcomes were observed for partial nephrectomy versus thermal ablation. The overall rate of ESRD was low among all management strategies (0.4%-2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Renal functional implications varied across management strategies for localized renal masses, with worse postoperative renal function for patients undergoing radical nephrectomy compared with other strategies and similar outcomes for partial nephrectomy and thermal ablation. Further attention is needed to quantify the changes in renal function associated with active surveillance and nephron-sparing approaches for patients with preexisting CKD.
Authors: Adam C Mues; Ruslan Korets; Joseph A Graversen; Ketan K Badani; Vincent G Bird; Sara L Best; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ralph V Clayman; Elspeth McDougall; Kurdo Barwari; Pilar Laguna; Jean de la Rosette; Louis Kavoussi; Zhamshid Okhunov; Ravi Munver; Sutchin R Patel; Stephen Nakada; Matvey Tsivian; Thomas J Polascik; Arieh Shalhav; W Bruce Shingleton; Emilie K Johnson; J Stuart Wolf; Jaime Landman Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Christopher R Mitchell; Thomas D Atwell; Adam J Weisbrod; Christine M Lohse; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich; R Houston Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brian R Lane; Robert Abouassaly; Tianming Gao; Christopher J Weight; Adrian V Hernandez; Benjamin T Larson; Jihad H Kaouk; Inderbir S Gill; Steven C Campbell Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christian Gratzke; Michael Seitz; Florian Bayrle; Boris Schlenker; Patrick J Bastian; Niko Haseke; Markus Bader; Derya Tilki; Alexander Roosen; Alexander Karl; Oliver Reich; Wael Y Khoder; Stephen Wyler; Christian G Stief; Michael Staehler; Alexander Bachmann Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sevag Demirjian; Brian R Lane; Ithaar H Derweesh; Toshio Takagi; Amr Fergany; Steven C Campbell Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Emmanuel Iyoha; Phillip M Pierorazio; Stephen M Sozio; Michael H Johnson; Ritu Sharma; Eric B Bass; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Urology Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Allan B Massie; Courtenay M Holscher; Macey L Henderson; Lara M Fahmy; Alvin G Thomas; Fawaz Al Ammary; Samantha N Getsin; Jon J Snyder; Krista L Lentine; Amit X Garg; Dorry L Segev Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Johannes Uhlig; Arne Strauss; Gerta Rücker; Ali Seif Amir Hosseini; Joachim Lotz; Lutz Trojan; Hyun S Kim; Annemarie Uhlig Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ridwan Alam; Hiten D Patel; Tijani Osumah; Arnav Srivastava; Michael A Gorin; Michael H Johnson; Bruce J Trock; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; James M McKiernan; Mohamad E Allaf; Phillip M Pierorazio Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Matthew Seager; Shankar Kumar; Emma Lim; Graham Munneke; Steve Bandula; Miles Walkden Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 3.039