Cargando…

Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?

OBJECTIVES: Over the past 20 years, the utility of partial nephrectomy (PN), compared to radical nephrectomy (RN), for the management of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has progressively increased, particularly for larger and more complex masses. We sought to compare the recurrence-free surviva...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hakam, Nizar, Heidar, Nassib Abou, El-Asmar, Jose, Khauli, Mark, Degheili, Jad, Al-Moussawy, Mouhamad, Nasr, Rami, El-Hajj, Albert, Wazzan, Wassim, Bulbul, Muhammad, Khauli, Raja B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10252787/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37304513
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_98_22
_version_ 1785056254172856320
author Hakam, Nizar
Heidar, Nassib Abou
El-Asmar, Jose
Khauli, Mark
Degheili, Jad
Al-Moussawy, Mouhamad
Nasr, Rami
El-Hajj, Albert
Wazzan, Wassim
Bulbul, Muhammad
Khauli, Raja B
author_facet Hakam, Nizar
Heidar, Nassib Abou
El-Asmar, Jose
Khauli, Mark
Degheili, Jad
Al-Moussawy, Mouhamad
Nasr, Rami
El-Hajj, Albert
Wazzan, Wassim
Bulbul, Muhammad
Khauli, Raja B
author_sort Hakam, Nizar
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Over the past 20 years, the utility of partial nephrectomy (PN), compared to radical nephrectomy (RN), for the management of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has progressively increased, particularly for larger and more complex masses. We sought to compare the recurrence-free survival (RFS) outcomes of PN versus RN in a single-institution cohort. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2017, 228 patients underwent RN or PN for lcT1a-T2b, N0M0 RCC at a single tertiary referral center, performed by five surgeons. The clinical end point result was (local or distant) RFS. Univariate and multivariate (cox regression) models were used to evaluate the association between type of surgery (PN vs. RN) and RFS, in the overall cohort and in a subgroup of patients with cT1b. RESULTS: The median age was 59 (interquartile range [IQR] 48–66), and the median tumor size was 4.5 cm (IQR 3–7). There were 128 PN and 100 RN. Over a median follow-up of 4.2 years (IQR 2.2–6.9), the Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significant RFS difference between PN and RN (logrank P = 0.53). On multivariate analysis, pathologic stage ≥T2a, Fuhrman Grade ≥3, and chromophobe histology were associated with a worse RFS. PN was not significantly associated with diminished RFS (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–4.3, P = 0.199) in the overall cohort compared to RN. However, in the cT1b subgroup, PN was associated with a significant increase in recurrence compared to RN (HR = 12.4, 95% CI 1.45–133.4, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Our institutional data highlight the possibility of compromise in RFS for clinically localized RCC treated with PN compared to RN, particularly for larger and more complex masses. These data raise concern, especially in light of the nonproven association of survival benefit of PN over RN, warranting future randomized prospective studies for further evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10252787
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102527872023-06-10 Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease? Hakam, Nizar Heidar, Nassib Abou El-Asmar, Jose Khauli, Mark Degheili, Jad Al-Moussawy, Mouhamad Nasr, Rami El-Hajj, Albert Wazzan, Wassim Bulbul, Muhammad Khauli, Raja B Urol Ann Original Article OBJECTIVES: Over the past 20 years, the utility of partial nephrectomy (PN), compared to radical nephrectomy (RN), for the management of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has progressively increased, particularly for larger and more complex masses. We sought to compare the recurrence-free survival (RFS) outcomes of PN versus RN in a single-institution cohort. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2017, 228 patients underwent RN or PN for lcT1a-T2b, N0M0 RCC at a single tertiary referral center, performed by five surgeons. The clinical end point result was (local or distant) RFS. Univariate and multivariate (cox regression) models were used to evaluate the association between type of surgery (PN vs. RN) and RFS, in the overall cohort and in a subgroup of patients with cT1b. RESULTS: The median age was 59 (interquartile range [IQR] 48–66), and the median tumor size was 4.5 cm (IQR 3–7). There were 128 PN and 100 RN. Over a median follow-up of 4.2 years (IQR 2.2–6.9), the Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significant RFS difference between PN and RN (logrank P = 0.53). On multivariate analysis, pathologic stage ≥T2a, Fuhrman Grade ≥3, and chromophobe histology were associated with a worse RFS. PN was not significantly associated with diminished RFS (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–4.3, P = 0.199) in the overall cohort compared to RN. However, in the cT1b subgroup, PN was associated with a significant increase in recurrence compared to RN (HR = 12.4, 95% CI 1.45–133.4, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Our institutional data highlight the possibility of compromise in RFS for clinically localized RCC treated with PN compared to RN, particularly for larger and more complex masses. These data raise concern, especially in light of the nonproven association of survival benefit of PN over RN, warranting future randomized prospective studies for further evaluation. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023 2023-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10252787/ /pubmed/37304513 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_98_22 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Urology Annals https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Hakam, Nizar
Heidar, Nassib Abou
El-Asmar, Jose
Khauli, Mark
Degheili, Jad
Al-Moussawy, Mouhamad
Nasr, Rami
El-Hajj, Albert
Wazzan, Wassim
Bulbul, Muhammad
Khauli, Raja B
Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?
title Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?
title_full Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?
title_short Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?
title_sort comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10252787/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37304513
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_98_22
work_keys_str_mv AT hakamnizar comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT heidarnassibabou comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT elasmarjose comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT khaulimark comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT degheilijad comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT almoussawymouhamad comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT nasrrami comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT elhajjalbert comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT wazzanwassim comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT bulbulmuhammad comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease
AT khaulirajab comparativeanalysisofpartialversusradicalnephrectomyforrenalcellcarcinomaisoncologicsafetycompromisedduringnephronsparinginhigherstagedisease