Advertisement

La taille tumorale limite-t-elle encore les indications de la néphrectomie partielle en 2007?

  • Maxime Crepel
  • Karim Bensalah
  • Jean-Jacques Patard
Chapter
  • 335 Downloads
Part of the Oncologie pratique book series (ONCOLPRAT)

Abstrait

La taille tumorale est un facteur pronostique important dans le carcinome à cellules rénales (CCR). Elle a été démontrée comme étant une variable pronostique indépendante concernant la survie spécifique au cancer (SSC), la survie sans métastases et la survie sans extension ganglionnaire (1, 2). De ce fait, elle est la base de la classification TNM dans ses révisions de 1987, 1997 et 2002 pour les cancers localisés au rein (3). Elle sépare en Tl et T2 les tumeurs confinées au rein selon leur taille, respectivement inférieure et supérieure à 7cm. Pour les tumeurs Tl, on distingue deux sous-groupes, Tla et Tlb, en fonction de la taille tumorale, respectivement inférieure et supérieure à 4 cm. La valeur pronostique de ces séparations a été validée entre autres par Ficarra et al., au travers ďune large série multicentrique de 2217 patients atteints de RCC. Les survies spécifiques au cancer des groupes Tla, Tlb et T2 étaient respectivement de 91,4%, 83,4% et 75,2% (p=0,0003) (4).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Karakiewicz PI, Lewinshtein DJ, Chun FK et al. (2006) Tumor size improves the accuracy of TNM predictions in patients with renal cancer. Eur Urol 50: 521–8; discussion 529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lau WK, Cheville JC, Blute ML et al. (2002) Prognostic features of pathologic stage T1 renal cell carcinoma after radical nephrectomy. Urology 59: 532–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sobin LH, Wittekind C (2003) TNM. Classification of malignant tumors. 6th Edition. UICC International Union Against Cancer Ed Willey-Liss, New York, p 193–5Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ficarra V, Schips L, Guille F et al. (2005) Multiinstitutional European validation of the 2002 TNM staging system in conventional and papillary localized renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 104: 968–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Chao D et al. (2001) 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 166:54–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ficarra V, Prayer-Galetti T, Novara G et al. (2004) Tumor-size breakpoint for prognostic stratification of localized renal cell carcinoma. Urology 63: 235–9; discussion 239-40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delahunt B, Kittelson JM, McCredie MR et al. (2002) Prognostic importance of tumor size for localized conventional (clear cell) renal cell carcinoma: assessment of TNM T1 and T2 tumor categories and comparison with other prognostic parameters. Cancer 94: 658–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patard JJ, Dorey FJ, Cindolo L et al. (2004) Symptoms as well as tumor size provide prognostic information on patients with localized renal tumors. J Urol 172: 2167–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Dorey F et al. (2001) Improved prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an integrated staging system. J Clin Oncol 19:1649–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frank I Blute ML, Cheville JC et al. (2002) An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol 168: 2395–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Chun FK et al. (2007) Multi-institutional validation of a new renal cancer-specific survival nomogram. J Clin Oncol 25: 1316–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Licht MR, Novick AC (1993) Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 149: 1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C et al. (1995) Prognostic significance of incidental renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 27: 319–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC (2000) Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol 163: 442–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lerner SE, Hawkins CA, Blute ML et al. (1996) Disease outcome in patients with low stage renal cell carcinoma treated with nephron sparing or radical surgery. J Urol 155: 1868–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hafez KS, Fergany AF, Novick AC (1999) Nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and TNM staging. J Urol 162: 1930–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al. (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: 1066–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patard JJ, Pantuck AJ, Crepel M et al. (2007) Morbidity and clinical outcome of nephronsparing surgery in relation to tumour size and indication. Eur Urol 52: 148–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitchell RE, Gilbert SM, Murphy AM et al. (2006) Partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy offer similar cancer outcomes in renal cortical tumors 4cm or larger. Urology 67: 260–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dash A, Vickers AJ, Schachter LR et al. (2006) Comparison of outcomes in elective partial vs radical nephrectomy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma of 4–7 cm. BJU Int 97: 939–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carini M, Minervini A, Lapini A et al. (2006) Simple enucleation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm in greatest dimension: progression and long-tern survival. J Urol 175: 2022–6; discussion 2026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Becker F, Siemer S Hack M et al. (2006) Excellent long-term cancer control with elective nephron-sparing surgery for selected renal cell carcinomas measuring more than 4cm. Eur Urol 49: 1058–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Becker F, Siemer S, Hack M et al. (2006) Excellent long-term cancer control with elective nephron-sparing surgery for selected renal cell carcinomas measuring more than 4cm. Eur Urol 49: 1058–63; discussion 1063-54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Novick AC, Derweesh I (2005) Open partial nephrectomy for renal tumours: current status. BJU Int 95Suppl 2: 35–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mejean A, Vogt B, Cazin S et al. (2002) Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma using selective renal parenchymal clamping. J Urol 167: 234–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller DC, Hollingsworth JM, Hafez KS et al. (2006) Partial nephrectomy for small renal masses: an emerging quality of care concern? J Urol 175: 853–7; discussion 858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 28.
    Huang WC, Elkin EB, Jang TL et al. (2007) Radical nephrectomy is associated with increased mortality in patients with small renal tumors. J Urol 177, AUA Annual Meeting, Abstract 493: 164Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM et al (2007) Partial nephrectomy for small renal masses associated with improved overall survival compared with radical nephrectomy? J Urol 177, AUA Annual Meeting, Abstract 641: 216Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Eskicorapci SY, Teber D Schulze M et al. (2007) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: the new gold standard surgical treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma Scientific World Journal 7: 825–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 31.
    Haber GP, Gill IS (2006) Laparoscopic, partial nephrectomy: contemporary technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 49: 660–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 32.
    Arakiewicz PI, Lewinshtein DJ, Chun FK et al. (2006) Tumor size improves the accuracy of TNM predictions in patients with renal cancer. Eur Urol 50: 521–8; discussion 529CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France, Paris 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maxime Crepel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Karim Bensalah
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Jacques Patard
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Service ďurologieCHU PontchaillouRennes cedex 9France
  2. 2.Université de RennesRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations