Cargando…

Radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice?

INTRODUCTION: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for approximately 3% of all adult malignancies. Surgery remains the only effective method of renal tumors treatment. In fact, for advanced RCC, radical nephrectomy (RN) should remain a standard treatment. However, in localized RCC (LRCC) a real incre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shulyak, Alexander, Banyra, Oleg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Polish Urological Association 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3921726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24578883
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2011.03.art12
_version_ 1782303338511990784
author Shulyak, Alexander
Banyra, Oleg
author_facet Shulyak, Alexander
Banyra, Oleg
author_sort Shulyak, Alexander
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for approximately 3% of all adult malignancies. Surgery remains the only effective method of renal tumors treatment. In fact, for advanced RCC, radical nephrectomy (RN) should remain a standard treatment. However, in localized RCC (LRCC) a real increase of survival rates realized by RN compared with simple nephrectomy (SN) or organ-sparing surgery is discussable. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of nephrectomy type on the prognosis of LRCC treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed the long-term outcomes of RN (n = 248 pts.) and SN (n = 170 pts.) in 418 pts. with LRCC. There were no significant statistical differences in tumor stages, age stratification or gender between these two groups. To compare the efficacy of RN and SN we determined overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates in both divided groups. The 3-year OS in RN group was 93.1% vs. 91.8% in SN group. RESULTS: CSS rates after the same period were 96.8% vs. 94.7% respectively. The 5-year OS in RN group was 91.5% vs. 88.8% in SN group. After 5 years of follow-up, CSS in RN group was 94.4% vs. 92.4% in SN group. Type of nephrectomy does not influence on LRCC outcomes. The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates and cancer-specific survival rates in RN and SN group were almost identical. CONCLUSION: Hence, if radical nephrectomy does not ensure better survival than simple nephrectomy, the expediency of vast surgery in localized RCC is doubtful.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3921726
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Polish Urological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39217262014-02-27 Radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice? Shulyak, Alexander Banyra, Oleg Cent European J Urol Urological Oncology INTRODUCTION: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for approximately 3% of all adult malignancies. Surgery remains the only effective method of renal tumors treatment. In fact, for advanced RCC, radical nephrectomy (RN) should remain a standard treatment. However, in localized RCC (LRCC) a real increase of survival rates realized by RN compared with simple nephrectomy (SN) or organ-sparing surgery is discussable. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of nephrectomy type on the prognosis of LRCC treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed the long-term outcomes of RN (n = 248 pts.) and SN (n = 170 pts.) in 418 pts. with LRCC. There were no significant statistical differences in tumor stages, age stratification or gender between these two groups. To compare the efficacy of RN and SN we determined overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates in both divided groups. The 3-year OS in RN group was 93.1% vs. 91.8% in SN group. RESULTS: CSS rates after the same period were 96.8% vs. 94.7% respectively. The 5-year OS in RN group was 91.5% vs. 88.8% in SN group. After 5 years of follow-up, CSS in RN group was 94.4% vs. 92.4% in SN group. Type of nephrectomy does not influence on LRCC outcomes. The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates and cancer-specific survival rates in RN and SN group were almost identical. CONCLUSION: Hence, if radical nephrectomy does not ensure better survival than simple nephrectomy, the expediency of vast surgery in localized RCC is doubtful. Polish Urological Association 2011-09-06 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC3921726/ /pubmed/24578883 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2011.03.art12 Text en Copyright by Polish Urological Association http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Urological Oncology
Shulyak, Alexander
Banyra, Oleg
Radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice?
title Radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice?
title_full Radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice?
title_fullStr Radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice?
title_full_unstemmed Radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice?
title_short Radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice?
title_sort radical or simple nephrectomy in localized renal cell carcinoma: what is a choice?
topic Urological Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3921726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24578883
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2011.03.art12
work_keys_str_mv AT shulyakalexander radicalorsimplenephrectomyinlocalizedrenalcellcarcinomawhatisachoice
AT banyraoleg radicalorsimplenephrectomyinlocalizedrenalcellcarcinomawhatisachoice