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

ArticleinEuropean Urology 58(2):293-8 · August 2010with8 Reads
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.
    • "According to our best knowledge, no previous study has attempted to explore the association between the nephrectomy type and CHD, although a few studies suggested that preserving renal function might protect patients' cardiovascular system and decrease the occurrence of cardiovascular diseases [13, 14]. To date, most of the literature only indicated that patients who underwent a PN would have lower overall mortality compared to those who underwent an RN [12,[17][18][19][20][21][22] . Conversely, a randomized trial found that PN seems to be less effective than RN in terms of overall survival [23]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Previous studies investigated the impacts of a partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) on cardiovascular events and death. However, the association between the type of nephrectomy (PN vs. RN) and cardiovascular disease is still equivocal. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) between patients who underwent a PN and those who underwent an RN. We used data from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2005. In total, 60 patients who underwent a PN and 545 patients who underwent an RN were included. Each patient was tracked for 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year periods to identify those who were subsequently diagnosed with CHD. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for CHD during 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up periods between these two cohorts. For the 1-year follow-up period, the adjusted HR was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.05~2.90, p = 0.355) for patients who underwent a PN compared to those who underwent an RN. Additionally, the adjusted HRs of CHD in patients who underwent a PN for 2-, 3- and 5-year follow-up periods were 1.40 (95% CI: 0.62~3.16, p = 0.417), 1.09 (95% CI: 0.52~2.31, p = 0.814), and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.48~2.18, p = 0.961), respectively, compared to those who underwent an RN. We concluded that there was no significant difference in the risk of CHD between patients who underwent a PN and those who underwent an RN.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2016
    • " Kidney cancer is the 3 rd most common urological malignancy and is expected to account for %3 of all cancer related deaths. [1] Historically, standard treatment for the renal masses of all sizes was radical nephrectomy. [2] However, radical nephrectomy is associated with increased prevalence of end-stage renal disease and cardiac events. [3] Instead, partial nephrectomy has similar oncological outcomes when compared with a radical approach and currently, it is the standard treatment of the small renal tumors. [4] With the advancing technology, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) has gained popularity. Reasons for wide acceptance include operative advantages such as reduc"
    [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.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015
    • "Smaller tumors suggest the opportunity perform more nephron sparing surgery; however, large national databases have suggested underutilization of PN4567. Increased knowledge of chronic cardiac and metabolic sequelae of RN, along with data suggesting oncologic equivalence for partial (PN) compared to radical nephrectomy for SRM, has prompted reconsideration of surgical approaches to renal masses891011121314. In 2009, the American Urological Association (AUA) published evidence-based practices guidelines for the management of clinical T1a renal masses as a guide for clinicians to consider PN to be the reference standard for T1a renal masses, and emphasizing the importance of renal preservation in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) [15]. "
    [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.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2014
Show more