P Zeuschner1, S Siemer2. 1. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Kirrberger Straße 100, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland. 2. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Kirrberger Straße 100, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland. stefan.siemer@uks.eu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Localized renal cell carcinoma is increasingly relevant in daily urological practice due to earlier diagnosis and higher life expectancy. OBJECTIVES: To analyze and compare current treatment evidence for localized renal cell carcinoma regarding new aspects of nephron-sparing surgery, the different surgical approaches and focal therapy. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to identify relevant publications from 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: Prospective randomized trials comparing nephrectomy with partial nephrectomy, the three different surgical approaches with each other, and focal therapy with surgery are still lacking. Positive effects on survival by partial nephrectomy could be demonstrated, even though partial nephrectomy has a higher morbidity than radical nephrectomy. Older patients (>75 years) with advanced localized renal cell carcinoma did not appear to benefit from partial nephrectomy so far, but minimally invasive surgical approaches are underrepresented in such studies. Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy is superior to the open approach, and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy has better results than laparoscopy. Focal therapy of kidney tumors is technically safe and feasible, but relevant comparisons with partial nephrectomy are still lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy is still the gold standard treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma, it should be preferably performed by a robot-assisted approach. Focal therapy can serve as an alternative in highly selected cases.
BACKGROUND:Localized renal cell carcinoma is increasingly relevant in daily urological practice due to earlier diagnosis and higher life expectancy. OBJECTIVES: To analyze and compare current treatment evidence for localized renal cell carcinoma regarding new aspects of nephron-sparing surgery, the different surgical approaches and focal therapy. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to identify relevant publications from 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: Prospective randomized trials comparing nephrectomy with partial nephrectomy, the three different surgical approaches with each other, and focal therapy with surgery are still lacking. Positive effects on survival by partial nephrectomy could be demonstrated, even though partial nephrectomy has a higher morbidity than radical nephrectomy. Older patients (>75 years) with advanced localized renal cell carcinoma did not appear to benefit from partial nephrectomy so far, but minimally invasive surgical approaches are underrepresented in such studies. Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy is superior to the open approach, and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy has better results than laparoscopy. Focal therapy of kidney tumors is technically safe and feasible, but relevant comparisons with partial nephrectomy are still lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy is still the gold standard treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma, it should be preferably performed by a robot-assisted approach. Focal therapy can serve as an alternative in highly selected cases.
Authors: Hendrik Van Poppel; Luigi Da Pozzo; Walter Albrecht; Vsevolod Matveev; Aldo Bono; Andrzej Borkowski; Marc Colombel; Laurence Klotz; Eila Skinner; Thomas Keane; Sandrine Marreaud; Sandra Collette; Richard Sylvester Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Maria C Mir; Nicola Pavan; Umberto Capitanio; Alessandro Antonelli; Ithaar Derweesh; Oscar Rodriguez-Faba; Estefania Linares; Toshio Takagi; Koon H Rha; Christian Fiori; Tobias Maurer; Chao Zang; Alexandre Mottrie; Paolo Umari; Jean-Alexandre Long; Gaelle Fiard; Cosimo De Nunzio; Andrea Tubaro; Andrew T Tracey; Matteo Ferro; Ottavio De Cobelli; Salvatore Micali; Luigi Bevilacqua; João Torres; Luigi Schips; Roberto Castellucci; Ryan Dobbs; Giuseppe Quarto; Pierluigi Bove; Antonio Celia; Bernardino De Concilio; Carlo Trombetta; Tommaso Silvestri; Alessandro Larcher; Francesco Montorsi; Carlotta Palumbo; Maria Furlan; Ahmet Bindayi; Zachary Hamilton; Alberto Breda; Joan Palou; Alfredo Aguilera; Kazunari Tanabe; Ali Raheem; Thomas Amiel; Bo Yang; Estevão Lima; Simone Crivellaro; Sisto Perdona; Caterina Gregorio; Giulia Barbati; Francesco Porpiglia; Riccardo Autorino Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Rohann J M Correa; Alexander V Louie; Michael Staehler; Andrew Warner; Senthilkumar Gandhidasan; Lee Ponsky; Rodney Ellis; Irving Kaplan; Anand Mahadevan; William Chu; Anand Swaminath; Hiroshi Onishi; Bin S Teh; Simon S Lo; Alexander Muacevic; Shankar Siva Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jack R Andrews; Thomas Atwell; Grant Schmit; Christine M Lohse; A Nicholas Kurup; Adam Weisbrod; Matthew R Callstrom; John C Cheville; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich; R Houston Thompson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Javier Perez-Ardavin; Jose Vicente Sanchez-Gonzalez; Manuel Martinez-Sarmiento; Juan Jose Monserrat-Monfort; Jorge García-Olaverri; Francisco Boronat-Tormo; César D Vera-Donoso Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: J Ricardo Rivero; Jose De La Cerda; Hanzhang Wang; Michael A Liss; Ann M Farrell; Ronald Rodriguez; Rajeev Suri; Dharam Kaushik Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: M W W Janssen; J Linxweiler; S Terwey; S Rugge; C-H Ohlmann; F Becker; Ch Thomas; A Neisius; J W Thüroff; S Siemer; M Stöckle; F C Roos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 3.240