Ricardo G Alvim1, François Audenet1, Emily A Vertosick2, Daniel D Sjoberg2, Karim A Touijer3. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: touijerk@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several standardized scoring systems are used to quantify renal tumor complexity on the basis of anatomic features to predict perioperative and postoperative outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN). OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive accuracy and utility of the Arterial Based Complexity (ABC), RENAL, and PADUA scores. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between January 2013 and March 2016, 304 patients at our institution underwent PN plus complete triphasic contrast computed tomography (CT) scans. Two urologists independently scored CT images to retrospectively evaluate each patient using the ABC, RENAL, and PADUA nephrometry scoring systems. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Interobserver variability was reported for each of the three nephrometry scores; κ=1 represented perfect agreement between the two urologists and κ=0 represented as much agreement as expected by chance. Univariate and multivariable linear regression models were used to investigate associations of the nephrometry scores with estimated blood loss (EBL), ischemia time, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 18 mo. Coefficients of determination (R2) were compared to determine which nephrometry score accounted for the most variation in outcome. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The κ value was 0.52 for ABC, 0.53 for RENAL, and 0.63 for PADUA (all p≤0.001). On univariate analysis, there were no significant associations between nephrometry scores and postoperative eGFR; all three scores were highly associated with ischemia time (p<0.0001) and EBL (p≤0.001). R2 was not significantly different among the three scoring systems. On multivariable analysis, all three nephrometry scores were significantly associated with ischemia time (p<0.0001) and EBL (p≤0.01); only the RENAL score was associated with postoperative eGFR (p=0.044), so its performance on this metric could not be compared to that of ABC or PADUA. CONCLUSIONS: The ABC, RENAL, and PADUA systems have similar performance for predicting EBL and ischemia time outcomes in PN, and are thus equally useful for assessing PN complexity. Further education and training are needed to reduce interobserver variability. PATIENT SUMMARY: A new score system called Arterial Based Complexity (ABC) can be used to evaluate the complexity of a renal tumor and predict how difficult the tumor resection (partial nephrectomy) may be. This system performs well compared to other established systems and seems easy to learn and use.
BACKGROUND: Several standardized scoring systems are used to quantify renal tumor complexity on the basis of anatomic features to predict perioperative and postoperative outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN). OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive accuracy and utility of the Arterial Based Complexity (ABC), RENAL, and PADUA scores. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between January 2013 and March 2016, 304 patients at our institution underwent PN plus complete triphasic contrast computed tomography (CT) scans. Two urologists independently scored CT images to retrospectively evaluate each patient using the ABC, RENAL, and PADUA nephrometry scoring systems. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Interobserver variability was reported for each of the three nephrometry scores; κ=1 represented perfect agreement between the two urologists and κ=0 represented as much agreement as expected by chance. Univariate and multivariable linear regression models were used to investigate associations of the nephrometry scores with estimated blood loss (EBL), ischemia time, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 18 mo. Coefficients of determination (R2) were compared to determine which nephrometry score accounted for the most variation in outcome. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The κ value was 0.52 for ABC, 0.53 for RENAL, and 0.63 for PADUA (all p≤0.001). On univariate analysis, there were no significant associations between nephrometry scores and postoperative eGFR; all three scores were highly associated with ischemia time (p<0.0001) and EBL (p≤0.001). R2 was not significantly different among the three scoring systems. On multivariable analysis, all three nephrometry scores were significantly associated with ischemia time (p<0.0001) and EBL (p≤0.01); only the RENAL score was associated with postoperative eGFR (p=0.044), so its performance on this metric could not be compared to that of ABC or PADUA. CONCLUSIONS: The ABC, RENAL, and PADUA systems have similar performance for predicting EBL and ischemia time outcomes in PN, and are thus equally useful for assessing PN complexity. Further education and training are needed to reduce interobserver variability. PATIENT SUMMARY: A new score system called Arterial Based Complexity (ABC) can be used to evaluate the complexity of a renal tumor and predict how difficult the tumor resection (partial nephrectomy) may be. This system performs well compared to other established systems and seems easy to learn and use.
Authors: Matthew N Simmons; Christina B Ching; Mary K Samplaski; Chin Hyong Park; Inderbir S Gill Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Maximilian C Kriegmair; Svetlana Hetjens; Philipp Mandel; Jula Wadle; Johannes Budjan; Maurice S Michel; Daniel Pfalzgraf; Nina Wagener Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Massimiliano Spaliviero; Bing Ying Poon; Christoph A Karlo; Giuliano B Guglielmetti; Pier Luigi Di Paolo; Renato Beluco Corradi; Alexandre G Martin-Malburet; Felix Campos-Juanatey; Eva Escudero-Fontano; Daniel D Sjoberg; Paul Russo; Jonathan A Coleman; Oguz Akin; Karim A Touijer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Canter; Alexander Kutikov; Brandon Manley; Brian Egleston; Jay Simhan; Marc Smaldone; Ervin Teper; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Urology Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Christopher J Weight; Thomas D Atwell; Robert T Fazzio; Simon P Kim; McCabe Kenny; Christine M Lohse; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich; R Houston Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Francesca Monn; Paul T Gellhaus; Timothy A Masterson; Aashish A Patel; Mark Tann; Dylan M Cregar; Ronald S Boris Journal: J Endourol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Nicolò Fiorello; Andrea Di Benedetto; Daniele Summonti; Andrea Mogorovich; Carlo Alberto Sepich Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2021-12-06
Authors: Katharina Beyer; Lisa Moris; Michael Lardas; Anna Haire; Francesco Barletta; Simone Scuderi; Megan Molnar; Ronald Herrera; Abdul Rauf; Riccardo Campi; Isabella Greco; Kirill Shiranov; Saeed Dabestani; Thomas van den Broeck; Sujenthiran Arun; Mauro Gacci; Giorgio Gandaglia; Muhammad Imran Omar; Steven MacLennan; Monique J Roobol; Bahman Farahmand; Eleni Vradi; Zsuzsanna Devecseri; Alex Asiimwe; Jihong Zong; Sara J Maclennan; Laurence Collette; James NDow; Alberto Briganti; Anders Bjartell; Mieke Van Hemelrijck Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Victor Dubeux; José Fernando Cardona Zanier; Carolina Gianella Cobo Chantong; Fabricio Carrerette; Pedro Nicolau Gabrich; Ronaldo Damião Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2022 Jul-Aug
Authors: Victor T Dubeux; José Fernando C Zanier; Pedro N Gabrich; Fabricio B Carrerette; José C A Milfont; Ronaldo Damião Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.541