Comparing Long-Term Outcomes Following Radical and Partial Nephrectomy for cT1 Renal Cell Carcinoma in Young and Healthy Individuals.


Journal

JNCI cancer spectrum
ISSN: 2515-5091
Titre abrégé: JNCI Cancer Spectr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721827

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Historique:
received: 17 10 2018
revised: 04 01 2019
accepted: 28 01 2019
entrez: 31 7 2019
pubmed: 31 7 2019
medline: 31 7 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite randomized data demonstrating better overall survival favoring radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy continues to be the treatment of choice for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. We utilized the National Cancer Database to identify patients younger than 50 years diagnosed with low-stage renal cell carcinoma (cT1) treated with radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy (2004-2007). Inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment was performed for all preoperative factors to account for confounding factors. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to compare overall survival of patients in the two treatment arms. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the interaction of type of surgery and clinical stage on overall survival. Among the 3009 patients (median age = 44 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 40-47 years]), 2454 patients (81.6%) were treated with radical nephrectomy and 555 patients (18.4%) with partial nephrectomy. The median follow-up was 108.6 months (IQR = 80.2-124.3 months) during which 297 patients (12.1%) in the radical nephrectomy arm and 58 patients (10.5%) in the partial nephrectomy arm died. Following inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, there was no difference in overall survival between patients treated with partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy (hazard ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 1.10, There was no difference in long-term overall survival between radical and partial nephrectomy in young and healthy patients. This patient cohort may have sufficient renal reserve over their lifetime, and preserving nephrons by partial nephrectomy may be unnecessary.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite randomized data demonstrating better overall survival favoring radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy continues to be the treatment of choice for low-stage renal cell carcinoma.
METHODS METHODS
We utilized the National Cancer Database to identify patients younger than 50 years diagnosed with low-stage renal cell carcinoma (cT1) treated with radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy (2004-2007). Inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment was performed for all preoperative factors to account for confounding factors. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to compare overall survival of patients in the two treatment arms. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the interaction of type of surgery and clinical stage on overall survival.
RESULTS RESULTS
Among the 3009 patients (median age = 44 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 40-47 years]), 2454 patients (81.6%) were treated with radical nephrectomy and 555 patients (18.4%) with partial nephrectomy. The median follow-up was 108.6 months (IQR = 80.2-124.3 months) during which 297 patients (12.1%) in the radical nephrectomy arm and 58 patients (10.5%) in the partial nephrectomy arm died. Following inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, there was no difference in overall survival between patients treated with partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy (hazard ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 1.10,
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
There was no difference in long-term overall survival between radical and partial nephrectomy in young and healthy patients. This patient cohort may have sufficient renal reserve over their lifetime, and preserving nephrons by partial nephrectomy may be unnecessary.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31360891
doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkz003
pii: pkz003
pmc: PMC6649692
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Retracted Publication

Langues

eng

Pagination

pkz003

Commentaires et corrections

Type : RetractionIn

Références

J Urol. 2001 Dec;166(6):2043-7
pubmed: 11696703
N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 17;347(16):1227-32
pubmed: 12393819
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003 Nov;14(11):2934-41
pubmed: 14569104
N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 23;351(13):1296-305
pubmed: 15385656
BJU Int. 2005 Apr;95(6):851-5
pubmed: 15794797
JAMA. 2005 Apr 13;293(14):1737-45
pubmed: 15827312
Urology. 2006 Feb;67(2):254-9
pubmed: 16442601
Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2006 Apr;3(4):198-205
pubmed: 16607368
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Jul;17(7):2034-47
pubmed: 16738019
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Sep;7(9):735-40
pubmed: 16945768
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep 20;98(18):1331-4
pubmed: 16985252
Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):614-20
pubmed: 17097216
Eur Urol. 2007 Jun;51(6):1606-15
pubmed: 17140723
J Urol. 2007 Jul;178(1):41-6
pubmed: 17574056
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Mar;15(3):683-90
pubmed: 18183467
J Urol. 2008 May;179(5):1714-7; discussion 1717-8
pubmed: 18343428
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 29;360(5):459-69
pubmed: 19179315
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 1;27(28):4671-8
pubmed: 19720926
J Urol. 2011 Feb;185(2):421-7
pubmed: 21167524
Eur Urol. 2011 Apr;59(4):543-52
pubmed: 21186077
J Urol. 2012 Mar;187(3):816-21
pubmed: 22248514
JAMA. 2012 Apr 18;307(15):1629-35
pubmed: 22511691
J Urol. 2012 Jul;188(1):51-7
pubmed: 22591957
J Urol. 2013 May;189(5):1649-55
pubmed: 23201493
Cancer. 2013 Aug 15;119(16):2981-9
pubmed: 23674264
Stat Med. 2014 Mar 30;33(7):1242-58
pubmed: 24122911
J Urol. 2014 Oct;192(4):1057-62
pubmed: 24747655
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Dec;23(13):4139-4148
pubmed: 27535406
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):606-617
pubmed: 27614693
J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):520-529
pubmed: 28479239
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Jun;15(6):804-834
pubmed: 28596261
Urol Oncol. 2017 Nov;35(11):660.e9-660.e15
pubmed: 28736248
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1445-1453
pubmed: 28986012
JAMA. 2017 Oct 24;318(16):1561-1568
pubmed: 29067427
BJU Int. 2018 Oct;122(4):599-609
pubmed: 29603575
Cancer. 1997 May 15;79(10):2052-61
pubmed: 9149035

Auteurs

Classifications MeSH