Maria C Mir1, Nicola Pavan2, Umberto Capitanio3, Alessandro Antonelli4, Ithaar Derweesh5, Oscar Rodriguez-Faba6, Estefania Linares7, Toshio Takagi8, Koon H Rha9, Christian Fiori10, Tobias Maurer11, Chao Zang12, Alexandre Mottrie13,14, Paolo Umari13,14, Jean-Alexandre Long15, Gaelle Fiard15, Cosimo De Nunzio16, Andrea Tubaro16, Andrew T Tracey17, Matteo Ferro18, Ottavio De Cobelli18, Salvatore Micali19, Luigi Bevilacqua19, João Torres20, Luigi Schips21, Roberto Castellucci21, Ryan Dobbs22, Giuseppe Quarto23, Pierluigi Bove24, Antonio Celia25, Bernardino De Concilio25, Carlo Trombetta2, Tommaso Silvestri2, Alessandro Larcher3, Francesco Montorsi3, Carlotta Palumbo4, Maria Furlan4, Ahmet Bindayi5, Zachary Hamilton5, Alberto Breda6, Joan Palou6, Alfredo Aguilera7, Kazunari Tanabe8, Ali Raheem9, Thomas Amiel11, Bo Yang12, Estevão Lima20, Simone Crivellaro22, Sisto Perdona23, Caterina Gregorio26, Giulia Barbati27, Francesco Porpiglia10, Riccardo Autorino28. 1. Department of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain. 2. Urology Clinic, Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Science, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 3. Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, UCSD, San Diego, CA, USA. 6. Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 8. Department of Urology, Kidney Center, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan. 9. Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 10. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Turin-San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Turin, Italy. 11. Department of Urology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 12. Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Shangahai, China. 13. ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium. 14. Department of Urology, OnzeLieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium. 15. Department of Urology, University of Grenoble, Grenoble, France. 16. Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy. 17. Division of Urology, VCU Health, 1200 East Broad st, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA. 18. Department of Urology, European Oncology Institute, Milan, Italy. 19. Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 20. CUF Urology and University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. 21. Division of Urology, ASL, Abruzzo 2, Chieti, Italy. 22. Urology, UCI, Chicago, IL, USA. 23. Division of Urology, IRCCS Pascale Foundation, Naples, Italy. 24. Department of Urology, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy. 25. Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa, Italy. 26. Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Padova, Padua, Italy. 27. Biostatistics Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 28. Division of Urology, VCU Health, 1200 East Broad st, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA. ricautor@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of PN to those of RN in very elderly patients treated for clinically localized renal tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A purpose-built multi-institutional international database (RESURGE project) was used for this retrospective analysis. Patients over 75 years old and surgically treated for a suspicious of localized renal with either PN or RN were included in this database. Surgical, renal function and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity scores for the predicted probability to receive PN in each patient were estimated by logistic regression models. Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to determine the relative change in hazard associated with PN vs RN on overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM). RESULTS: A total of 613 patients who underwent RN were successfully matched with 613 controls who underwent PN. Higher overall complication rate was recorded in the PN group (33% vs 25%; p = 0.01). Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 35 months (interquartile range [IQR] 13-63 months). There was a significant difference between RN and PN in median decline of eGFR (39% vs 17%; p < 0.01). PN was not correlated with OM (HR = 0.71; p = 0.56), OCM (HR = 0.74; p = 0.5), and showed a protective trend for CSM (HR = 0.19; p = 0.05). PN was found to be a protective factor for surgical CKD (HR = 0.28; p < 0.01) and worsening of eGFR in patients with baseline CKD. Retrospective design represents a limitation of this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of PN in very elderly patients with localized renal tumor does not compromise oncological outcomes, and it allows better functional preservation at mid-term (3-year) follow-up, relative to RN. Whether this functional benefit translates into a survival benefit remains to be determined.
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of PN to those of RN in very elderly patients treated for clinically localized renal tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A purpose-built multi-institutional international database (RESURGE project) was used for this retrospective analysis. Patients over 75 years old and surgically treated for a suspicious of localized renal with either PN or RN were included in this database. Surgical, renal function and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity scores for the predicted probability to receive PN in each patient were estimated by logistic regression models. Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to determine the relative change in hazard associated with PN vs RN on overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM). RESULTS: A total of 613 patients who underwent RN were successfully matched with 613 controls who underwent PN. Higher overall complication rate was recorded in the PN group (33% vs 25%; p = 0.01). Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 35 months (interquartile range [IQR] 13-63 months). There was a significant difference between RN and PN in median decline of eGFR (39% vs 17%; p < 0.01). PN was not correlated with OM (HR = 0.71; p = 0.56), OCM (HR = 0.74; p = 0.5), and showed a protective trend for CSM (HR = 0.19; p = 0.05). PN was found to be a protective factor for surgical CKD (HR = 0.28; p < 0.01) and worsening of eGFR in patients with baseline CKD. Retrospective design represents a limitation of this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of PN in very elderly patients with localized renal tumor does not compromise oncological outcomes, and it allows better functional preservation at mid-term (3-year) follow-up, relative to RN. Whether this functional benefit translates into a survival benefit remains to be determined.
Authors: Marco Bianchi; Giorgio Gandaglia; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jens Hansen; Andreas Becker; Firas Abdollah; Zhe Tian; Giovanni Lughezzani; Florian Roghmann; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Emil Scosyrev; Edward M Messing; Richard Sylvester; Steven Campbell; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Brian Shuch; Janet Hanley; Julie Lai; Srinivas Vourganti; Simon P Kim; Claude M Setodji; Andrew W Dick; Wong-Ho Chow; Chris Saigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Katherine Mallin; Jamie Ritchey; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M T Walach; M F Wunderle; N Haertel; J K Mühlbauer; K F Kowalewski; N Wagener; N Rathmann; M C Kriegmair Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 4.226