Should patients with low-risk renal cell carcinoma be followed differently after nephron-sparing surgery vs radical nephrectomy?


Journal

BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2021
Historique:
revised: 10 03 2021
received: 17 11 2020
accepted: 29 03 2021
pubmed: 2 4 2021
medline: 30 11 2021
entrez: 1 4 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To investigate whether pT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be followed differently after partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) based on a retrospective analysis of a multicentre database (RECUR). A retrospective study was conducted in 3380 patients treated for nonmetastatic RCC between January 2006 and December 2011 across 15 centres from 10 countries, as part of the RECUR database project. For patients with pT1 clear-cell RCC, patterns of recurrence were compared between RN and PN according to recurrence site. Univariate and multivariate models were used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). From the database 1995 patients were identified as low-risk patients (pT1, pN0, pNx), of whom 1055 (52.9%) underwent PN. On multivariate analysis, features associated with worse RFS included tumour size (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.39; P < 0.001), nuclear grade (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73-3.08; P < 0.001), tumour necrosis (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.3; P = 0.037), vascular invasion (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = 0.005) and positive surgical margins (HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.3-8.5; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis of CSM revealed that the survival of patients with recurrence after PN was significantly better than those with recurrence after RN (P = 0.02). While the above-mentioned risk factors were associated with prognosis, type of surgery alone was not an independent prognostic variable for RFS nor CSM. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study. Our results showed that follow-up protocols should not rely solely on stage and type of primary surgery. An optimized regimen should also include validated risk factors rather than type of surgery alone to select the best imaging method and to avoid unnecessary imaging. A follow-up of more than 3 years should be considered in patients with pT1 tumours after RN. A novel follow-up strategy is proposed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33794055
doi: 10.1111/bju.15415
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

386-394

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Authors BJU International © 2021 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Moch H, Cubilla AL, Humphrey PA, Reuter VE, Ulbright TM. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs-part A: renal, penile, and testicular tumours. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 93-105
Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Bensalah K et al. Renal cell carcinoma EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2019. Eur Urol 2019; 67: 913-24
Chen DYT, Uzzo RG. Optimal management of localized renal cell carcinoma: surgery, ablation, or active surveillance. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009; 7: 635-42; quiz 643
Klatte T, Ficarra V, Gratzke C et al. A literature review of renal surgical anatomy and surgical strategies for partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 980-92
Brookman-May S, May M, Shariat SF et al. Features associated with recurrence beyond 5 years after nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: development and internal validation of a risk model (PRELANE score) to predict late recurrence based on a large multicenter database. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 472-7
Breda A, Konijeti R, Lam JS. Patterns of recurrence and surveillance strategies for renal cell carcinoma following surgical resection. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2007; 7: 847-62
Ljungberg B, Alamdari FI, Rasmuson T, Roos G. Follow-up guidelines for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma based on the occurrence of metastases after radical nephrectomy. BJU Int 1999; 84: 405-11
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Kidney Cancer Version 1.2021 - July 15, 2020 NCCN.org
Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT et al. Follow-up for clinically localized renal neoplasms: AUA guideline. J Urol 2013; 190: 407-16
Dabestani S, Beisland C, Stewart GD et al. Long-term outcomes of follow-up for initially localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma: RECUR database analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 5: 857-66
Jiang YL, Peng CX, Wang HZ, Qian LJ. Comparison of the long-term follow-up and perioperative outcomes of partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy for 4 cm to 7 cm renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol 2019; 19: 1-10
Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al. Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer 2003; 97: 1663-71
Correa AF, Toussi A, Amin M, Hrebinko RL, Gayed BA, Parwani AV, Maranchie JK. Small renal masses in close proximity to the collecting system and renal sinus are enriched for malignancy and high fuhrman grade and should be considered for early intervention. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2018; 16: e729-33
Kim SH, Park B, Hwang EC et al. Retrospective multicenter long-term follow-up analysis of prognostic risk factors for recurrence-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival after curative nephrectomy in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Front Oncol 2019; 9: 859
Dabestani S, Beisland C, Stewart GD et al. Increased use of cross-sectional imaging for follow-up does not improve post-recurrence survival of surgically treated initially localized R.C.C.: results from a European multicenter database (R.E.C.U.R.). Scand J Urol 2019; 53: 14-20

Auteurs

Yasmin Abu-Ghanem (Y)

UCL Division of Surgical and Interventional Science, Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Thomas Powles (T)

Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Umberto Capitanio (U)

Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute (URI), IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Christian Beisland (C)

Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Petrus Järvinen (P)

Urology, Abdominal Centre, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Grant D Stewart (GD)

Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Eirikur Gudmundsson (E)

Department of Urology, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Thomas B L Lam (TBL)

Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Lorenzo Marconi (L)

Department of Urology, Coimbra University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal.

Sergio Fernandéz-Pello (S)

Department of Urology, Cabueñes University Hospital, Gijón, Spain.

Harry Nisen (H)

Urology, Abdominal Centre, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Richard P Meijer (RP)

Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Alessandro Volpe (A)

Department of Urology, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.

Börje Ljungberg (B)

Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Tobias Klatte (T)

Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Department of Urology, Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bournemouth, UK.

Karim Bensalah (K)

Department of Urology, University Hospital of Rennes, Rennes, France.

Saeed Dabestani (S)

Division of Urological Cancers, Department of Translational Medicine, Central Hospital Kristianstad, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Axel Bex (A)

UCL Division of Surgical and Interventional Science, Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH