Comparison of survival and renal function between partial and radical laparoscopic nephrectomy for T1b renal cell carcinoma

  • Feiya Yang
  • Qiang Zhou
  • Nianzeng XingEmail author
Original Article – Clinical Oncology



Partial nephrectomy has been persuaded as a widely accepted surgical procedure for T1a (≤ 4 cm) renal tumors. However, when treating T1b (4–7 cm) renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the “optimal” method of surgery is still debatable. The aim of the research is to evaluate the long-term oncological and renal functional outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for patients with T1b RCC.

Materials and methods

From March 1, 2003 to July 1, 2016, 331 patients were included in the current study. Patients presented with unilateral T1b RCC and underwent either LPN (n = 177) or LRN (n = 154). Relevant clinical data including follow-ups were acquired from patients.


The operation time of the LPN group patients was longer than that of LRN group (94.3 min vs 88.3 min, p = 0.021) and LPN group patients required shorter stays in hospital (11.5 days vs. 13.4 days, p = 0.009). Contrast to LRN, level of eGFR was superior in LPN at the postoperative time of 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months (all p < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier plots and log-rank tests showed that patients undergoing LPN had a much higher overall survival (OS) (p = 0.007), cancer-specific survival (CSS) (p = 0.006) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) (p = 0.008) than those receiving LRN. In comparison with the LRN group, multivariable Cox analysis indicated that patients of the LPN group had a 1.9-fold OS, 2.9-fold CSS and 2.3-fold MFS.


For patients with T1b RCC, our findings revealed that OS, CSS and MFS are superior in patients receiving LPN than those treated with LRN. With the benefit of preserving renal function of LPN, which leads a less incidence risk of other systematic diseases, LPN may be the preferred option when condition permits for cases involving T1b RCC.


T1b renal cell carcinoma Partial nephrectomy Radical nephrectomy Survival Renal function 



This research was financially supported by the Capital Science and Technology Leading Talent Project (Project number: Z181100006318007).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Beijing Chaoyang Hospital (China). Each enrolled patient provided written informed consent.


  1. Ahmedov V, Kizilay F, Cureklibatir I (2018) Prognostic significance of body mass index and other tumor and patient characteristics in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Urol J 15:96–103. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alimi Q et al (2018) Comparison of short-term functional, oncological, and perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy beyond the learning curve. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg 28:1047–1052. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alyami FA, Rendon RA (2013) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for > 4 cm renal masses. Cancer Urol Assoc J 7:E281–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ani I, Finelli A, Alibhai SMH, Timilshina N, Fleshner N, Abouassaly R (2013) Prevalence and impact on survival of positive surgical margins in partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a population-based study. BJU Int 111:E300–E305. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arora S et al (2018) Retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: comparison in a multi-institutional setting. Urology 120:131–137. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Badalato GM, Kates M, Wisnivesky JP, Choudhury AR, McKiernan JM (2012) Survival after partial and radical nephrectomy for the treatment of stage T1bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the USA: a propensity scoring approach. BJU Int 109:1457–1462. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoit M et al (2018) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy after selective embolization and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a comparison of short-term oncological and functional outcomes. Clin Genitourin Cancer 16:453–457. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergstrom A, Hsieh CC, Lindblad P, Lu CM, Cook NR, Wolk A (2001) Obesity and renal cell cancer–a quantitative review. Br J Cancer 85:984–990. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell SC, Novick AC (2006) Expanding the indications for elective partial nephrectomy: is this advisable? Eur Urol 49:952–954. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Capitanio U et al (2015) Nephron-sparing techniques independently decrease the risk of cardiovascular events relative to radical nephrectomy in patients with a T1a-T1b renal mass and normal preoperative renal function. Eur Urol 67:683–689. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang KD et al (2018) Functional and oncological outcomes of open laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre comparative matched-pair analyses with a median of 5 years’ follow-up. BJU Int 122:618–626. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH (1976) Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 16:31–41. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Deklaj T, Lifshitz DA, Shikanov SA, Katz MH, Zorn KC, Shalhav AL (2010) Laparoscopic radical versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1bN0M0 renal tumors: comparison of perioperative, pathological, and functional outcomes. J Endourol 24:1603–1607. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240:205–213. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellison JS, Montgomery JS, Wolf JS, Hafez KS, Miller DC, Weizer AZ (2012) A matched comparison of perioperative outcomes of a single laparoscopic surgeon versus a multisurgeon robot-assisted cohort for partial nephrectomy. J Urol 188:45–50. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fan XX et al (2013) Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 111:611–621. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Favaretto RL et al (2013) Oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: mid-term results. J Endourol 27:52–57. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gago-Dominguez M, Castelao JE, Yuan JM, Ross RK, Yu MC (2002) Lipid peroxidation: a novel and unifying concept of the etiology of renal cell carcinoma (United States). Cancer Causes Control 13:287–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garg M, Singh V, Sinha RJ, Sharma P (2014) Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal laparoscopic simple nephrectomy. Urology 84:335–339. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY (2004) Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med 351:1296–1305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gu LY et al (2018) Laparoscopic vs robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumours of > 4 cm: a propensity score-based analysis. BJU Int 122:449–455. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Iizuka J et al (2012) Similar functional outcomes after partial nephrectomy for clinical T1b and T1a renal cell carcinoma. Int J Urol 19:980–986. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamat AM, Shock RP, Naya Y, Rosser CJ, Slaton JW, Pisters LL (2004) Prognostic value of body mass index in patients undergoing nephrectomy for localized renal tumors. Urology 63:46–50. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaushik D et al (2013) Overall survival and development of stage IV chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing partial and radical nephrectomy for benign renal tumors. Eur Urol 64:600–606. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kieran K, Montgomery JS, Daignault S, Roberts WW, Wolf JS Jr (2007) Comparison of intraoperative parameters and perioperative complications of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: support for a retroperitoneal approach in selected patients. J Endourol 21:754–759. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim SP et al (2012) Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 188:51–57. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim JH, Park YH, Kim YJ, Kang SH, Byun SS, Kwak C, Hong SH (2015) Perioperative and long-term renal functional outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a multicenter matched-pair comparison. World J Urol 33:1579–1584. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kizilay F, Turna B, Apaydin E, Semerci B (2019) Comparison of long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy Kaohsiung. J Med Sci 35:238–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larcher A et al (2016) Elective nephron sparing surgery decreases other cause mortality relative to radical nephrectomy only in specific subgroups of patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 196:1008–1013. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Torres VE, Zincke H (2000) Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc 75:1236–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leibovich BC, Blute M, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H (2004) Nephron sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome similar to radical nephrectomy. J Urol 171:1066–1070. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lesage K, Joniau S, Fransis K, Van Poppel H (2007) Comparison between open partial and radical nephrectomy for renal tumours: perioperative outcome and health-related quality of life. Eur Urol 51:614–620. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Liss MA et al (2014) Evaluation of national trends in the utilization of partial nephrectomy in relation to the publication of the American Urologic Association guidelines for the management of clinical T1 renal masses. BMC Urol 14:101. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Ljungberg B et al (2015) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67:913–924. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Margulis V, Tamboli P, Jacobsohn KM, Swanson DA, Wood CG (2007) Oncological efficacy and safety of nephron-sparing surgery for selected patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 100:1235–1239. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Marszalek M et al (2011) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of the transperitoneal versus the retroperitoneal approach. Urology 77:109–113. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Minervini A, Mari A, Carini M, Porpiglia F (2016) Partial nephrectomy in clinical T1b renal tumors: multicenter comparative study of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted approach (the record project) reply. Urology 89:52–53. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mir MC, Derweesh I, Porpiglia F, Zargar H, Mottrie A, Autorino R (2017) Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for clinical T1b and T2 renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 71:606–617. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitchell RE, Gilbert SM, Murphy AM, Olsson CA, Benson MC, McKiernan JM (2006) Partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy offer similar cancer outcomes in renal cortical tumors 4 cm or larger. Urology 67:260–264. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ng CS et al (2005) Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: patient selection and perioperative outcomes. J Urol 174:846–849. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Patard JJ et al (2007) Morbidity and clinical outcome of nephron-sparing surgery in relation to tumour size and indication. Eur Urol 52:148–154. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Patel SG et al (2012) National trends in the use of partial nephrectomy: a rising tide that has not lifted all boats. J Urol 187:816–821. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Peyronnet B et al (2016) Comparison of 1800 robotic and open partial nephrectomies for renal tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 23:4277–4283. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rini BI, Campbell SC, Escudier B (2009) Renal cell carcinoma. Lancet 373:1119–1132. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sammon J, Petros F, Sukumar S, Bhandari A, Kaul S, Menon M, Rogers C (2011) Barbed suture for renorrhaphy during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 25:529–533. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tachibana H, Takagi T, Kondo T, Ishida H, Tanabe K (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and preserved renal parenchymal volume. Int J Urol 25:359–364. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson RH, Siddiqui S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Russo P, Blute ML (2009) Partial versus radical nephrectomy for 4 to 7 cm renal cortical tumors. J Urol 182:2601–2606. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Weight CJ et al (2010) Partial nephrectomy is associated with improved overall survival compared to radical nephrectomy in patients with unanticipated benign renal tumours. Eur Urol 58:293–298. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright JL, Porter JR (2005) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Urol 174:841–845. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wu ZJ et al (2015) Propensity-score matched analysis comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 115:437–445. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang FY, Zhou Q, Li XS, Xing NZ (2019) The methods and techniques of identifying renal pedicle vessels during retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy. World J Surg Oncol. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Yossepowitch O et al (2008) Positive surgical margins at partial nephrectomy: predictors and oncological outcomes J. Urology 179:2158–2163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zini L et al (2009) Radical versus partial nephrectomy: effect on overall and noncancer mortality. Cancer 115:1465–1471. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Zhongnan HospitalWuhan UniversityWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Urology, Beijing Chaoyang HospitalCapital Medical UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations