INTRODUCTION: The benefit of lymph node dissection (LND) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains poorly defined. Despite this uncertainty, the American Urological Association (AUA) guideline on localized renal cancer recommends that LND be performed for staging purposes when there is suspicion of regional lymphadenopathy on imaging. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we sought to determine how much of a departure the new AUA guideline is from current practice. We hypothesized that practice patterns would reflect the "Expert Opinion" recommendation and that patients who are clinical lymph node (cLN) positive would receive a LND more often than those who are cLN negative. Additionally, we sought to determine factors that would trigger a LND as well the accuracy of clinical staging by examining the relationship between cLN and pathologic lymph node (pLN) status of patients who received a LND. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NCDB was queried for patients with nonmetastatic RCC who underwent partial nephrectomy or nephrectomy from 2010 to 2014. Patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were extracted. Frequency distributions were calculated for patients with both cLN and pLN status available. Of patients who received a LND, sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of cLN status for pLN positivity were calculated. Logistic regression models were used to examine association between clinical and socioeconomic factors and receipt of LND. Propensity score matching was used in sensitivity analyses to examine potential for reporting bias in NCDB data. RESULTS: We identified 110,963 patients who underwent surgery for RCC, of whom 11,867 (11%) had LND performed at the time of surgery. cLN and pLN information were available in 11,300 patients, of which 1,725 were preoperatively staged as having positive cLN. More LNDs were performed per year for patients who were cLN negative than cLN positive. Of patients who received a LND, the majority of patients were cLN negative across all clinical T (cT) stages. Multivariable analysis showed that all patients who had care at an academic/research institution (odds ratio [OR]: 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-1.74) and had to travel >12.5 to 31.0 miles and >31.0 miles to a treatment center (OR: 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.15 and OR: 1.28, 95%CI: 1.20-1.36, respectively) were more likely to get a LND. As cT stage increased from cT2-4, the risk of LND increased (OR range: 4.7-7.90, respectively). Patients who were cLN positive were more likely to receive a LND at the time of surgery (OR: 18.68, 95%CI: 16.62-21.00). Of the patients who received a LND, clinical staging was more specific than sensitive. CONCLUSION: More patients received a LND who were cLN negative compared to patients who were cLN positive. Patients who were cLN positive were more likely to receive a LND. Treatment center type, distance to treatment center, cT stage, and cLN positivity were factors associated with LND receipt.
INTRODUCTION: The benefit of lymph node dissection (LND) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains poorly defined. Despite this uncertainty, the American Urological Association (AUA) guideline on localized renal cancer recommends that LND be performed for staging purposes when there is suspicion of regional lymphadenopathy on imaging. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we sought to determine how much of a departure the new AUA guideline is from current practice. We hypothesized that practice patterns would reflect the "Expert Opinion" recommendation and that patients who are clinical lymph node (cLN) positive would receive a LND more often than those who are cLN negative. Additionally, we sought to determine factors that would trigger a LND as well the accuracy of clinical staging by examining the relationship between cLN and pathologic lymph node (pLN) status of patients who received a LND. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NCDB was queried for patients with nonmetastatic RCC who underwent partial nephrectomy or nephrectomy from 2010 to 2014. Patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were extracted. Frequency distributions were calculated for patients with both cLN and pLN status available. Of patients who received a LND, sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of cLN status for pLN positivity were calculated. Logistic regression models were used to examine association between clinical and socioeconomic factors and receipt of LND. Propensity score matching was used in sensitivity analyses to examine potential for reporting bias in NCDB data. RESULTS: We identified 110,963 patients who underwent surgery for RCC, of whom 11,867 (11%) had LND performed at the time of surgery. cLN and pLN information were available in 11,300 patients, of which 1,725 were preoperatively staged as having positive cLN. More LNDs were performed per year for patients who were cLN negative than cLN positive. Of patients who received a LND, the majority of patients were cLN negative across all clinical T (cT) stages. Multivariable analysis showed that all patients who had care at an academic/research institution (odds ratio [OR]: 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-1.74) and had to travel >12.5 to 31.0 miles and >31.0 miles to a treatment center (OR: 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.15 and OR: 1.28, 95%CI: 1.20-1.36, respectively) were more likely to get a LND. As cT stage increased from cT2-4, the risk of LND increased (OR range: 4.7-7.90, respectively). Patients who were cLN positive were more likely to receive a LND at the time of surgery (OR: 18.68, 95%CI: 16.62-21.00). Of the patients who received a LND, clinical staging was more specific than sensitive. CONCLUSION: More patients received a LND who were cLN negative compared to patients who were cLN positive. Patients who were cLN positive were more likely to receive a LND. Treatment center type, distance to treatment center, cT stage, and cLN positivity were factors associated with LND receipt.
Authors: Umberto Capitanio; Nazareno Suardi; Rayan Matloob; Marco Roscigno; Firas Abdollah; Ettore Di Trapani; Marco Moschini; Andrea Gallina; Andrea Salonia; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Roberto Bertini Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jan Schmitges; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jesse Sammon; Claudio Jeldres; Kevin Zorn; Shyam Sukumar; Paul Perrotte; Markus Graefen; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Umberto Capitanio; Firas Abdollah; Rayan Matloob; Nazareno Suardi; Fabio Castiglione; Ettore Di Trapani; Paolo Capogrosso; Andrea Gallina; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Salonia; Francesco Montorsi; Roberto Bertini Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Paul L Crispen; Rodney H Breau; Cristine Allmer; Christine M Lohse; John C Cheville; Bradley C Leibovich; Michael L Blute Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Umberto Capitanio; Claudio Jeldres; Jean-Jacques Patard; Paul Perrotte; Laurent Zini; Alexandre de La Taille; Vincenzo Ficarra; Luca Cindolo; Karim Bensalah; Walter Artibani; Jacques Tostain; Antoine Valeri; Richard Zigeuner; Arnaud Méjean; Jean Luc Descotes; Eric Lechevallier; Peter F Mulders; Herve Lang; Didier Jacqmin; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jan H M Blom; Hein van Poppel; Jean M Maréchal; Didier Jacqmin; Fritz H Schröder; Linda de Prijck; Richard Sylvester Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alain Kaldany; Zev R Leopold; Juliana E Kim; Hiren V Patel; Arnav Srivastava; Alexandra L Tabakin; Eric A Singer Journal: Kidney Cancer J Date: 2020-12
Authors: Daniel M Geynisman; Jodi K Maranchie; Mark W Ball; Gennady Bratslavsky; Eric A Singer Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 2.954