Dataset Information

Partial vs. radical nephrectomy and the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular, and nephrological outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: The study's objective was to examine the effects of renal-preservation surgery on long-term mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal-related outcomes.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all partial (n=575) and radical nephrectomies (n=882) for tumors ?7 cm in diameter between 2002 and 2010 across three academic centers in Ontario, Canada. We linked records from provincial databases to assess patient characteristics and outcomes (median seven years' followup using retrospective data). A weighted propensity score was used to reduce confounding. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization with major cardiovascular events, non-cancer related mortality, kidney cancer-related mortality, and dialysis.

Results: Mean one-year postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 71 mL/min/1.73 m² in the partial group and 52 mL/min/1.73 m² in the radical group. Partial nephrectomy was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first five years after surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.66), which did not extend beyond five years (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68-1.49). Kidney cancer-related mortality was lower in the partial compared to the radical group for the first four years after surgery (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.72). There were no significant differences between the groups for cardiovascular outcomes or non-cancer related deaths.

Conclusions: Overall survival and cancer-specific survival was reduced in radical nephrectomy patients. However, despite reduced renal function in the radical nephrectomy group, non-cancer-related death, cardiovascular events, and dialysis were not significantly different between groups. Long-term benefits of partial nephrectomy may be less than previously believed.

SUBMITTER: Breau RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7716822 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Partial vs. radical nephrectomy and the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular, and nephrological outcomes.

Breau Rodney H RH Kapoor Anil A Nash Danielle M DM Rowe Neal N Cristea Octav O Chan Garson G Dixon Stephanie N SN McArthur Eric E Tajzler Camilla C Kumar Ravi R Vinden Christopher C Izawa Jonathan J Garg Amit X AX Luke Patrick P PP

Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada 20201001 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>The study's objective was to examine the effects of renal-preservation surgery on long-term mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal-related outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a retrospective cohort study of all partial (n=575) and radical nephrectomies (n=882) for tumors ≤7 cm in diameter between 2002 and 2010 across three academic centers in Ontario, Canada. We linked records from provincial databases to assess patient characteristics and outcomes (median seven yea ...[more]

PMID: 32432530

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPartial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy are the relevant surgical therapy options for localised renal cell carcinoma. However, debate regarding the effects of these surgical approaches continues and it is important to identify and summarise high-quality studies to make surgical treatment recommendations.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of partial nephrectomy compared with radical nephrectomy for clinically localised renal cell carcinoma.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, BIOSIS, LILACS, Scopus, two trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 24 February 2017, together with reference lists; and contacted selected experts in the field.Selection criteriaWe included a randomised controlled trial comparing partial and radical nephrectomy for participants with small renal masses.Data collection and analysisOne review author screened all of the titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Next, two review authors independently assessed full-text reports, identified relevant studies, evaluated the eligibility of the studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The update of the literature search was performed by two independent review authors. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and data analyses.Main resultsWe identified one randomised controlled trial including 541 participants that compared partial nephrectomy to radical nephrectomy. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.Based on low quality evidence, we found that time-to-death of any cause was decreased using partial nephrectomy (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.18). This corresponds to 79 more deaths (5 more to 173 more) per 1000. Also based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in serious adverse events (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 22.34). Findings are consistent with 4 more surgery-related deaths (3 fewer to 78 more) per 1000.Based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in time-to-recurrence (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.24). This corresponds to 12 more recurrences (14 fewer to 70 more) per 1000. Due to the nature of reporting, we were unable to analyse overall rates for immediate and long-term adverse events. We found no evidence on haemodialysis or quality of life.Reasons for downgrading related to study limitations (lack of blinding, cross-over), imprecision and indirectness (a substantial proportion of patients were ultimately found not to have a malignant tumour). Based on the finding of a single trial, we were unable to conduct any subgroup or sensitivity analyses.Authors' conclusionsPartial nephrectomy may be associated with a decreased time-to-death of any cause. With regards to surgery-related mortality, cancer-specific survival and time-to-recurrence, partial nephrectomy appears to result in little to no difference.

Project description:Although partial nephrectomy is the preferred treatment for many patients with early-stage kidney cancer, recent clinical trial data, which demonstrate better survival for patients treated with radical nephrectomy, have generated new uncertainty regarding the comparative effectiveness of these treatment options.To compare long-term survival after partial vs radical nephrectomy among a population-based patient cohort whose treatment reflects contemporary surgical practice.We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with clinical stage T1a kidney cancer treated with partial or radical nephrectomy from 1992 through 2007. Using an instrumental variable approach to account for measured and unmeasured differences between treatment groups, we fit a 2-stage residual inclusion model to estimate the treatment effect of partial nephrectomy on long-term survival.Overall and kidney cancer-specific survival.Among 7138 Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage kidney cancer, we identified 1925 patients (27.0%) treated with partial nephrectomy and 5213 patients (73.0%) treated with radical nephrectomy. During a median follow-up of 62 months, 487 (25.3%) and 2164 (41.5%) patients died following partial or radical nephrectomy, respectively. Kidney cancer was the cause of death for 37 patients (1.9%) treated with partial nephrectomy, and 222 patients (4.3%) treated with radical nephrectomy. Patients treated with partial nephrectomy had a significantly lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85). This corresponded with a predicted survival increase with partial nephrectomy of 5.6 (95% CI, 1.9-9.3), 11.8 (95% CI, 3.9-19.7), and 15.5 (95% CI, 5.0-26.0) percentage points at 2, 5, and 8 years posttreatment (P < .001). No difference was noted in kidney cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.19-3.49).Among Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage kidney cancer who were candidates for either surgery, treatment with partial rather than radical nephrectomy was associated with improved survival.

Project description:Use of robotic surgery has increased in urological practice over the last decade. However, the use, outcomes, and costs of robotic nephrectomy are unknown.To examine the trend in use of robotic-assisted operations for radical nephrectomy in the United States and to compare the perioperative outcomes and costs with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.This retrospective cohort study used the Premier Healthcare database to evaluate outcomes of patients who had undergone robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal mass at 416 US hospitals between January 2003 and September 2015. Multivariable regression modeling was used to assess outcomes.Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.The primary outcome of the study was the trend in use of robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. The secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, based on the Clavien classification system, and defined as any complication (Clavien grades 1-5) or major complications (Clavien grades 3-5, for which grade 5 results in death); resource use (operating time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay); and direct hospital cost.Among 23?753 patients included in the study (mean age, 61.4 years; men, 13?792 [58.1%]), 18?573 underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and 5180 underwent robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. Use of robotic-assisted surgery increased from 1.5% (39 of 2676 radical nephrectomy procedures in 2003) to 27.0% (862 of 3194 radical nephrectomy procedures) in 2015 (P for trend <.001). In the weighted-adjusted analysis, there were no significant differences between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in the incidence of any (Clavien grades 1-5) postoperative complications (adjusted rates, 22.2% vs 23.4%, difference, -1.2%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 3.0%) or major (Clavien grades 3-5) complications (adjusted rates, 3.5% vs 3.8%, difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 0.5%). The rate of prolonged operating time (>4 hours) for patients undergoing the robotic-assisted procedure was higher than for patients receiving the laparoscopic procedure in the adjusted analysis (46.3% vs 25.8%; risk difference, 20.5%; 95% CI, 14.2% to 26.8%). Robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with higher mean 90-day direct hospital costs ($19?530 vs $16?851; difference, $2678; 95% CI, $838 to $4519), mainly accounted for operating room ($7217 vs $5378; difference, $1839; 95% CI, $1050 to $2628) and supply costs ($4876 vs $3891; difference, $985; 95% CI, $473 to $1498).Among patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal mass between 2003 and 2015, the use of robotic-assisted surgery increased substantially. The use of robotic-assistance was not associated with increased risk of any or major complications but was associated with prolonged operating time and higher hospital costs compared with laparoscopic surgery.

Dataset Information

Partial vs. radical nephrectomy and the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular, and nephrological outcomes.

Publications

Partial vs. radical nephrectomy and the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular, and nephrological outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets