External validation of the Simplified PADUA REnal (SPARE) nephrometry system in predicting surgical outcomes after partial nephrectomy.
Nephrometry
Partial nephrectomy
Pentafecta
SPARE system
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Sep 2020
11 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
01
02
2020
accepted:
21
08
2020
entrez:
12
9
2020
pubmed:
13
9
2020
medline:
28
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pentafecta is a major goal in the era of partial nephrectomy (PN). Simplified PADUA REnal (SPARE) nephrometry system was developed to evaluate the complexity of tumor. However, the predictive ability in pentafecta of SPARE system is yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to externally validate the applicability of SPARE nephrometry system in predicting pentafecta achievement after partial nephrectomy, and to examine inter-observer concordance. We retrospectively reviewed data of 207 consecutive patients who underwent PN between January 2012 and August 2018 at a tertiary referral center. We obtained SPARE, R.E.N.A.L., and PADUA scores and evaluated correlations among the nephrometries and surgical outcomes including pentafecta by Spearman test. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of pentafecta outcomes. We compared the nephrometries to determine the predictive ability of achieving pentafecta using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Fleiss' generalized kappa was used to assessed interobserver variation in the SPARE system. Based on the SPARE system, 120, 74, and 13 patients were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups, respectively. Regarding the individual components of pentafecta, there were significant differences in the complication rate (p = 0.03), ischemia time (p < 0.001), and percent change of eGFR (p < 0.001) among the three risk groups. In addition, higher tumor complexity was significantly associated with a lower achievement rate of pentafecta (p = 0.01). In Spearman correlation tests, SPARE nephrometry was correlated with ischemia time (ρ:0.37, p < 0.001), operative time (ρ:0.28, p < 0.001), complication rate (ρ:0.34, p < 0.001), percent change of eGFR (ρ:0.34, p < 0.001), and progression of chronic kidney disease stage (ρ:0.17, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that SPARE significantly affected pentafecta (OR: 0.67, p < 0.001). In ROC curve analysis, SPARE showed fair predictive ability in the achievement pentafecta (AUC: 0.71). The predictive ability of pentafecta was similar between nephrometries (SPARE vs. R.E.N.A.L., p = 0.78; SPARE vs. PADUA, p = 0.66). The interobserver concordance of SPARE was excellent (Kappa: 0.82, p = 0.03). SPARE system was a predictive factor of surgical outcomes after PN. This refined nephrometry had similar predictive abilities for pentafecta achievement compared with R.E.N.A.L. and PADUA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pentafecta is a major goal in the era of partial nephrectomy (PN). Simplified PADUA REnal (SPARE) nephrometry system was developed to evaluate the complexity of tumor. However, the predictive ability in pentafecta of SPARE system is yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to externally validate the applicability of SPARE nephrometry system in predicting pentafecta achievement after partial nephrectomy, and to examine inter-observer concordance.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed data of 207 consecutive patients who underwent PN between January 2012 and August 2018 at a tertiary referral center. We obtained SPARE, R.E.N.A.L., and PADUA scores and evaluated correlations among the nephrometries and surgical outcomes including pentafecta by Spearman test. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of pentafecta outcomes. We compared the nephrometries to determine the predictive ability of achieving pentafecta using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Fleiss' generalized kappa was used to assessed interobserver variation in the SPARE system.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on the SPARE system, 120, 74, and 13 patients were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups, respectively. Regarding the individual components of pentafecta, there were significant differences in the complication rate (p = 0.03), ischemia time (p < 0.001), and percent change of eGFR (p < 0.001) among the three risk groups. In addition, higher tumor complexity was significantly associated with a lower achievement rate of pentafecta (p = 0.01). In Spearman correlation tests, SPARE nephrometry was correlated with ischemia time (ρ:0.37, p < 0.001), operative time (ρ:0.28, p < 0.001), complication rate (ρ:0.34, p < 0.001), percent change of eGFR (ρ:0.34, p < 0.001), and progression of chronic kidney disease stage (ρ:0.17, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that SPARE significantly affected pentafecta (OR: 0.67, p < 0.001). In ROC curve analysis, SPARE showed fair predictive ability in the achievement pentafecta (AUC: 0.71). The predictive ability of pentafecta was similar between nephrometries (SPARE vs. R.E.N.A.L., p = 0.78; SPARE vs. PADUA, p = 0.66). The interobserver concordance of SPARE was excellent (Kappa: 0.82, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SPARE system was a predictive factor of surgical outcomes after PN. This refined nephrometry had similar predictive abilities for pentafecta achievement compared with R.E.N.A.L. and PADUA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32917159
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00702-6
pii: 10.1186/s12894-020-00702-6
pmc: PMC7488659
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
146Références
Eur Urol. 2009 Nov;56(5):786-93
pubmed: 19665284
World J Urol. 2015 Jun;33(6):853-8
pubmed: 25149471
Urol Oncol. 2019 Jan;37(1):33-39
pubmed: 30473205
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jul;41(7):934-40
pubmed: 25957967
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):606-617
pubmed: 27614693
Cent European J Urol. 2018;71(1):64-71
pubmed: 29732209
World J Urol. 2020 Jan;38(1):151-158
pubmed: 30937569
J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):36-42
pubmed: 23164381
Urology. 2017 Jan;99:112-117
pubmed: 27038982
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Mar;41(3):346-52
pubmed: 25583459
Urol Oncol. 2018 Jul;36(7):338.e19-338.e26
pubmed: 29759510
BJU Int. 2015 May;115(5):787-95
pubmed: 24905965
J Urol. 2018 Oct;200(4):716-730
pubmed: 29730203
BJU Int. 2019 Apr;123(4):639-645
pubmed: 30253020
J Urol. 2016 Jul;196(1):33-40
pubmed: 26820552
J Urol. 2009 Sep;182(3):844-53
pubmed: 19616235
World J Urol. 2018 May;36(5):783-788
pubmed: 29380129
J Urol. 2011 Jul;186(1):42-6
pubmed: 21571340
J Robot Surg. 2020 Feb;14(1):185-190
pubmed: 30993524
BJU Int. 2019 Apr 9;:
pubmed: 30963680
BMC Urol. 2019 Aug 5;19(1):72
pubmed: 31382944
BJU Int. 2015 Sep;116(3):407-14
pubmed: 25220543
BJU Int. 2017 Mar;119(3):456-463
pubmed: 27528265
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;43(4):823-830
pubmed: 27876194
J Surg Oncol. 2018 Jul;118(1):206-211
pubmed: 29878367