Partial Nephrectomy Is Associated with Improved Overall Survival Compared to Radical Nephrectomy in Patients with Unanticipated Benign Renal Tumours

Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue,Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
European Urology (Impact Factor: 12.48). 08/2010; 58(2):293-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.033
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Partial nephrectomy (PN) has been associated with improved overall survival (OS) in select cohorts with localised renal masses when compared to radical nephrectomy (RN). The driving forces behind these differences have been difficult to elucidate given the heterogeneity of previously compared cohorts.
Compare OS in a subset of patients with unanticipated benign renal masses to minimise the confounding effect of cancer.
We retrospectively evaluated 2608 consecutive clinical T1 enhancing renal masses that were treated with extirpative surgery at our institution between 1999 and 2006. Of these, 499 tumours (19%) were found to be benign on final pathology. Preoperative data and renal functional data were used to generate a propensity model that was then plugged into a multivariate model of survival. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 50 mo (interquartile range [IQR]: 32-73).
All patients underwent PN or RN.
We measured OS and cardiac-specific survival.
Five-year OS estimates for the PN (n=388) and RN (n=111) cohorts were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93-98) versus 83% (95% CI, 74-90), respectively (P<0.0001). On multivariate analysis, controlling for both comorbidity and age, RN was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk of death compared to PN (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1). Postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was also an independent predictor of OS and cardiac-specific survival (HR: 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99 and HR: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99, respectively). The retrospective nature of this analysis limits the strength of the conclusions.
PN was associated with better OS when compared to RN in patients with unanticipated benign tumours. This observed survival advantage appears partly to be the result of better preservation of eGFR, but other kidney functions or unmeasured factors may also play a role. These data indicate that PN should be aggressively pursued in any patient where PN is technically feasible.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We aimed to compare the surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in the management of small renal masses. Between 2009 and 2013, a total of 46 RAPN patients and 20 OPN patients was included in this study. Patients' demographics, mean operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), warm ischemia time (WIT), length of hospital stay, pre- and post-operative renal functions, complications and oncological outcomes were recorded, prospectively. Mean tumor size was 4.04 cm in OPN group and 3.56 cm in RAPN group (P = 0.27). Mean R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score was 6.35 in OPN group and 5.35 in RAPN group (P = 0.02). The mean operative time was 152 min in OPN group and 225 min in RAPN group (P = 0.006). The mean EBL in OPN and RAPN groups were 417 ml and 268 ml, respectively (P = 0.001). WIT in OPN group was significantly shorter than RAPN group (18.02 min vs. 23.33 min, P = 0.003). The mean drain removal time and the length of hospital stay were longer in OPN group. There were no significant differences in terms of renal functional outcomes and postoperative complications between groups. Minimally invasive surgical management of renal masses with RAPN offers better outcomes in terms of EBL and length of stay. However, the mean operative time and WIT were significantly shorter in OPN group. RAPN is a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to OPN in terms of oncological and functional outcomes.
    Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 01/2015; 11(1):72-7. DOI:10.4103/0972-9941.147699 · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Partial nephrectomy has been underutilized in the United States. We investigated national trends in partial nephrectomy (PN) utilization before and after publication of the American Urological Association (AUA) Practice Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass METHODS: We identified adult patients who underwent radical (RN) or PN from November 2007 to October 2011 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). PN prevalence was calculated prior to (11/2007-10/2009) and after Guidelines publication (11/2009-10/2011) and compared the rate of change by linear regression. We also examined the nephrectomy trends in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Statistical analysis included linear regression to determine point-prevalence of PN rates in CKD patients and logistic regression to identify variables associated with PN. During the study period, 30,944 patients underwent PN and 64,767 RN. The prevalence PN increased from 28.9% in the years prior to guideline release to 35.3% in the years following guideline release with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.24 (CI 1.01-1.54; p = 0.049). The rate of PN significantly increased throughout the study period (R2 0.15, p = 0.006): however, the rate of change was not increased after the guidelines. (p = 0.46). Overall rate of PN in patients with CKD did not increase over time (R2 0.0007, p = 0.99). We noted a 6.4% absolute increase in PN after release of the AUA guidelines on clinical T1 renal mass was published; however, the rate of increase was not likely associated with guideline release. The rate of PN performed is increasing; however, further investigation regarding medical decision-making surrounding PN is needed.
    BMC Urology 12/2014; 14(1):101. DOI:10.1186/1471-2490-14-101 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this report, updated guidelines for the evaluation, medical and surgical management of renal cell carcinoma are presented. They are categorized according the stage of the disease using the tumor node metastasis staging system 7(th) edition. The recommendations are presented with supporting evidence level.
    Urology Annals 10/2014; 6(4):286-9. DOI:10.4103/0974-7796.140974


Available from