Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Should there be a size limit for elective nephron-sparing surgery?

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) is a mandatory procedure for patients with solid renal masses who also have coexisting urologic or medical conditions that pose a threat to overall renal function. The excellent results observed with this procedure have led patients with normal contralateral kidneys to choose elective NSS as a treatment modality. However, the optimal selection criteria for NSS have not yet been defined. We review the developments in and recent results of NSS and discuss features critical in selecting patients for this procedure on an elective basis. Current data clearly support the use of elective NSS for localized solid renal masses under 4 cm in size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M: Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002, 52:23–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Belldegrun AS: The changing natural history of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001, 166:1611–1623.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Devesa SS, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK, et al.: Comparison of the descriptive epidemiology of urinary tract cancers. Cancer Causes Control 1990, 1:133–141.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Figlin RA: Renal cell carcinoma: management of advanced disease. J Urol 1999, 161:381–386.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Robson CJ: Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1963, 89:37–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Robson C, Churchill B, Anderson W: The results of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1969, 101:297–302.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Skinner DG, Colvin RB, Vermillion CD, et al.: Diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma. A clinical and pathologic study of 309 cases. Cancer 1971, 28:1165–1177.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Patel NP, Lavengood RW: Renal cell carcinoma: natural history and results of treatment. J Urol 1978, 119:722–726.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rafla S: Renal cell carcinoma. Natural history and results of treatment. Cancer 1970, 25:26–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Vermooten V: Indications for conservative surgery in certain renal tumors: study based on the growth pattern of clear cell carcinoma. J Urol 1950, 64:200–208.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gillenwater J, Howards S: The kidney, hypertension and vascular disease: tumor. In 1981 Yearbook of Urology. St. Louis: Mosby; 1981:116–133.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Rauch MK, Belldegrun A: Incidental renal tumors. Urology 2000, 56:190–196.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith S, Bosniak M, Megibow A, et al.: Renal cell carcinoma: earlier discovery and increased detection. Radiology 1989, 170:699–703.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jayson M, Sanders H: Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology 1998, 51:203–205.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Konnak J, Grossman H: Renal cell carcinoma as an incidental finding. J Urol 1985, 134:1094–1096.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Luciani LG, Cestari R, Tallarigo C: Incidental renal cell carcinoma-age and stage characterization and clinical implications: study of 1092 patients (1982-1997). Urology 2000, 56:58–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tsui K, Shvarts O, Smith R, et al.: Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumors. J Urol 2000, 163:426–430. This article convincingly demonstrates that patients with incidentally discovered renal masses have superior prognoses compared with patients presenting with symptoms (85% vs 63%). The presence or absence of symptoms should be considered when choosing surgical approaches.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sweeney JP, Thornhill JA, Graiger R, et al.: Incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma: pathological features, survival trends and implications for treatment. Br J Urol 1996, 78:351–353.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, de Fromont M, et al.: Prognostic value of nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 1995, 76:2543–2549.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee CT, Katz J, Shi W, et al.: Surgical management of renal tumors 4 cm or less in a contemporary cohort. J Urol 2000, 163:730–736.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Clark PE, Schover LR, Uzzo RG, et al.: Quality of life and psychological adaptation after surgical treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of the amount of remaining renal tissue. Urology 2001, 57:252–256. There are very little data on quality-of-life issues after renal surgery. This article demonstrates better quality of life for patients who underwent NSS compared with patients treated with RN.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shinohara N, Harabayashi T, Sato S, et al.: Impact of nephronsparing surgery on quality of life in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2001, 39:114–119.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, et al.: Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc 2000, 75:1236–1242. In this series an attempt to limit bias was made by matching patients treated with NSS to a similar cohort of patients who underwent RN. The authors demonstrated no difference in the efficacy of NSS or RN. However, they do demonstrate superior renal function in patients who underwent NSS compared with patients treated with RN.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McKiernan J, Simmons R, Katz J, Russo P: Natural history of chronic renal insufficiency after partial and radical nephrectomy. Urology 2002, 59:816–820.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Corman JM, Penson DF, Hur K, et al.: Comparison of complications after radical and partial nephrectomy: results from the National Veterans Administration Surgical Quality Improvement Program. BJU Int 2000, 86:782–789.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Shekarriz H, et al.: Comparison of costs and complications of radical and partial nephrectomy for treatment of localized renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2002, 59:211–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Hafez K, et al.: Comparison of direct hospital costs and length of stay for radical nephrectomy versus nephron-sparing surgery in the management of localized renal cell carcinoma. Urology 1999, 54:994–998.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dechet C, Sebo T, Farrow G, et al.: Prospective analysis of intraoperative frozen needle biopsy of solid renal masses in adults. J Urol 1999, 162:1282–1284. This article demonstrates the inaccuracy of frozen section needle biopsy for the evaluation of solid renal masses. The findings indicate intraoperative decisions regarding surgical approach should not rely heavily on renal biopsy.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dechet CB, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, et al.: Prospective analysis of computed tomography and needle biopsy with permanent sectioning to determine the nature of solid renal masses in adults. J Urol 2003, 169:71–74. The authors examined the accuracy of imaging and permanent section needle biopsy for the determination of benign versus malignant renal masses. The findings indicate that these modalities are unreliable. Solid neoplasms must be considered malignant until proven otherwise.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kobayashi M, Hashimoto S, Tokue A: Nephron-sparing surgery is still controversial for patients with renal cell carcinoma and normal contralateral kidney: risks predictable by AgNOR counts in satellite lesions. Mol Urol 2000, 4:21–29.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Schlichter A, Wunderlich H, Junker K, et al.: Where are the limits of elective nephron-sparing surgery in renal cell carcinoma? Eur Urol 2000, 37:517–520.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kletscher BA, Qian J, Bostwick DG, et al.: Prospective analysis of multifocality in renal cell carcinoma: influence of histological pattern, grade, number, size, volume and deoxyribonucleic acid ploidy. J Urol 1995, 153:904–906.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Moll V, Becht E, Ziegler M: Kidney preserving surgery in renal cell tumors: indications, techniques and results in 152 patients. J Urol 1993, 150:319–323.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Licht MR, Novick AC, Goormastic M: Nephron sparing surgery in incidental versus suspected renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1994, 152:39–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lerner SE, Hawkins CA, Blute ML, et al.: Disease outcome in patients with low stage renal cell carcinoma treated with nephron sparing or radical surgery. J Urol 1996, 155:1868–1873.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Butler BP, Novick AC, Miller DP, et al.: Management of small unilateral renal cell carcinomas: radical versus nephronsparing surgery. Urology 1995, 45:34–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hafez KS, Fergany AF, Novick AC: Nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and TNM staging. J Urol 1999, 162:1930–1933. This article presents a very large series of patients who underwent NSS and demonstrated low local recurrence rates.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Chao D, et al.: Reevaluation of the 1997 TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: T1 and T2 cutoff point at 4.5 rather than 7 cm better correlates with clinical outcome. J Urol 2001, 166:54–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lau WK, Cheville JC, Blute ML, et al.: Prognostic features of pathologic stage T1 renal cell carcinoma after radical nephrectomy. Urology 2002, 59:532–537. This article provides a complete review of all features associated with prognosis in low-stage RCC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kovacs G, Akhtar M, Beckwith BJ, et al.: The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours. J Pathol 1997, 183:131–133.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Amin MB, Amin MB, Tamboli P, et al.: Prognostic impact of histologic subtyping of adult renal epithelial neoplasms: an experience of 405 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2002, 26:281–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ, et al.: A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001, 166:63–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hafez KS, Novick AC, Butler BP: Management of small solitary unilateral renal cell carcinomas: impact of central versus peripheral tumor location. J Urol 1998, 159:1156–1160.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Cheville JC, Blute ML, Zincke H, et al.: Stage pT1 conventional (clear cell) renal cell carcinoma: pathological features associated with cancer specific survival. J Urol 2001, 166:453–456. Another excellent review of features associated with survival in patients with low-stage RCC.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Novick AC, Zincke H, Neves RJ, Topley HM: Surgical enucleation for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1986, 135:235–238.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sutherland SE, Resnick MI, Maclennan GT, Goldman HB: Does the size of the surgical margin in partial nephrectomy for renal cell cancer really matter? J Urol 2002, 167:61–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Novick AC, Stewart BH, Straffon RA, Banowsky LH: Partial nephrectomy in the treatment of renal adenocarcinoma. J Urol 1977, 118:932–936.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Smith RB, deKernion JB, Ehrlich RM, et al.: Bilateral renal cell carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma in the solitary kidney. J Urol 1984, 132:450–454.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Bazeed MA, Scharfe T, Becht E, et al.: Conservative surgery of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 1986, 12:238–243.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Provet J, Tessler A, Brown J, et al.: Partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: indications, results and implications. J Urol 1991, 145:472–476.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Morgan WR, Zincke H: Progression and survival after renal-conserving surgery for renal cell carcinoma: experience in 104 patients and extended followup. J Urol 1990, 144:852–857.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Belldegrun A, Tsui KH, deKernion JB, Smith RB: Efficacy of nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: analysis based on the new 1997 tumor-node-metastasis staging system. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:2868–2875.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Duque JL, Loughlin KR, O’Leary MP, et al.: Partial nephrectomy: alternative treatment for selected patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urology 1998, 52:584–590.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ghavamian R, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, et al.: Renal cell carcinoma in the solitary kidney: an analysis of complications and outcome after nephron sparing surgery. J Urol 2002, 168:454–549.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Licht MR, Novick AC: Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1993, 149:1–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, 55905, Rochester, MN, USA

    Kent G. Krejci MD & Bradley C. Leibovich MD

Authors
  1. Kent G. Krejci MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bradley C. Leibovich MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krejci, K.G., Leibovich, B.C. Should there be a size limit for elective nephron-sparing surgery?. Curr Urol Rep 4, 21–29 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-003-0053-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-003-0053-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation