Abstract
Purpose
To compare partial nephrectomy (PN) and percutaneous ablative therapy (AT) for renal tumor in imperative indication of nephron-sparing technique (NST).
Materials and methods
Between 2000 and 2015, 284 consecutive patients with a kidney tumor in an imperative indication of NST were retrospectively included in a multicenter study. PN [open (n = 146), laparoscopic (n = 9), or robotic approach (n = 17)] and AT [radiofrequency ablation (n = 104) or cryoablation (n = 8)] were performed for solitary kidney (n = 146), bilateral tumor (n = 78), or chronic kidney disease (CKD) (n = 60).
Results
Patients in the PN group had larger tumors and a higher RENAL score. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to age, reasons for imperative indication, and preoperative eGFR. Patients in the AT group had a higher ASA and CCI. PN had worse outcomes than AT in terms of transfusion rate, length of stay, and complication rate. Local radiological recurrence-free survival was better for PN, but metastatic recurrence was similar. Percentage of eGFR decrease was similar in the two groups. Temporary or permanent dialysis was not significantly different. On multivariate analysis, PN and AT had a similar eGFR change when adjusted for tumor complexity, reason of imperative indication and CCI.
Conclusion
In imperative indication of nephron-sparing treatment for a kidney tumor, either PN or AT can be proposed. PN offers the ability to manage larger and more complex tumors while providing a better local control and a similar renal function loss.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Long J-A, Lee B, Eyraud R et al (2012) Robotic partial nephrectomy: imperative vs elective indications. Urology 80:833–837
Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S et al (2015) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67:913–924
Guillotreau J, Haber G-P, Autorino R et al (2012) Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic cryoablation for the small renal mass. Eur Urol 61:899–904
Psutka SP, Feldman AS, McDougal WS et al (2013) Long-term oncologic outcomes after radiofrequency ablation for T1 renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 63:486–492
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Arnoux V, Descotes J-L, Sengel C et al (2013) Perioperative outcomes and mid-term results of radiofrequency ablation and partial nephrectomy in indications of renal tumor treatment and imperative nephron-sparing procedure. Prog En Urol J Assoc Fr Urol Société Fr Urol 23:99–104
Larcher A, Fossati N, Tian Z et al (2015) Prediction of complications following partial nephrectomy: implications for ablative techniques candidates. Eur Urol 69:676–682
Trudeau V, Becker A, Roghmann F et al (2014) Local tumor destruction in renal cell carcinoma—an inpatient population-based study. Urol Oncol 32(54):e1–e7
Guillotreau J, Yakoubi R, Long J-A et al (2012) Robotic partial nephrectomy for small renal masses in patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease. Urology 80:845–851
Long J-A, Yakoubi R, Lee B et al (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for complex tumors: comparison of perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 61:1257–1262
Lane BR, Novick AC, Babineau D et al (2008) Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy for tumor in a solitary kidney. J Urol 179:847–851 (discussion 852)
Panumatrassamee K, Kaouk JH, Autorino R et al (2013) Cryoablation versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for small renal masses in the solitary kidney: impact of approach on functional outcomes. J Urol 189:818–822
El Dib R, Touma NJ, Kapoor A (2012) Cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of case series studies. BJU Int 110:510–516
Kunkle DA, Uzzo RG (2008) Cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation of the small renal mass: a meta-analysis. Cancer 113:2671–2680
Tanagho YS, Bhayani SB, Kim EH et al (2013) Renal cryoablation versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: Washington University long-term experience. J Endourol Endourol Soc 27:1477–1486
Thompson RH, Atwell T, Schmit G et al (2015) Comparison of partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation for cT1 renal masses. Eur Urol 67:252–259
Author’s contribution
Jean-Alexandre Long was involved in project development, data management, data analysis, and manuscript writing; Jean-Christophe Bernhard and Pierre Bigot were involved in project development and data management; Cecilia Lanchon was involved in manuscript writing. Philippe Paparel, Nathalie Rioux-Leclercq, François-Xavier Nouhaud, Pierre Gimel, and Laurence Albiges were involved in data management; Thomas Bodin, Romain Boissier, Arnaud Méjean, Alexandra Masson-Lecomte, Nicolas Grenier, Francois Cornelis, Yohann Grassano, Vincent Comat, Quentin Come LE CLERC, Jérome Rigaud, Laurent Salomon, Jean-Luc Descotes, Christian Sengel, Morgan Roupret, Gregory Verhoest, Idir Ouzaid, and Valentin Arnoux were involved in data collection; and Karim Bensalah was involved in project development, data management, data analysis, and manuscript writing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Long, JA., Bernhard, JC., Bigot, P. et al. Partial nephrectomy versus ablative therapy for the treatment of renal tumors in an imperative setting. World J Urol 35, 649–656 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1913-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1913-4