1
|
Kazama A, Munoz-Lopez C, Attawettayanon W, Boumitri M, Maina E, Lone Z, Rathi N, Lewis K, Campbell RA, Palacios DA, Kaouk J, Haber GP, Haywood S, Almassi N, Weight CJ, Remer EM, Ward R, Nowacki AS, Campbell SC. Parenchymal obliteration by renal masses: Functional and oncologic implications. Urol Oncol 2024; 42:247.e11-247.e19. [PMID: 38729867 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.04.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 03/14/2024] [Accepted: 04/18/2024] [Indexed: 05/12/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Most renal tumors merely displace nephrons while others can obliterate parenchyma in an invasive manner. Substantial parenchymal volume replacement (PVR) by renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may have oncologic implications; however, studies regarding PVR remain limited. Our objective was to evaluate the oncologic implications associated with PVR using improved methodology including more accurate and objective tools. PATIENTS/METHODS A total of 1,222 patients with non-metastatic renal tumors managed with partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) at Cleveland Clinic (2011-2014) with necessary studies were retrospectively evaluated. Parenchymal volume analysis via semiautomated software was used to estimate split renal function and preoperative parenchymal volumes. Using the contralateral kidney as a control, %PVR was defined: (parenchymal volumecontralateral-parenchymal volumeipsilateral) normalized by parenchymal volumecontralateral x100%. PVR was determined preoperatively and not altered by management. Patients were grouped by degree of PVR: minimal (<5%, N = 566), modest (5%-25%, N = 414), and prominent (≥25%, N = 142). Kaplan-Meier was used to evaluate survival outcomes relative to degree of PVR. Multivariable Cox-regression models evaluated predictors of recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS Of 1,122 patients, 801 (71%) were selected for PN and 321 (29%) for RN. Overall, median tumor size was 3.1 cm and 6.8 cm for PN and RN, respectively, and median follow-up was 8.6 years. Median %PVR was 15% (IQR = 6%-29%) for patients selected for RN and negligible for those selected for PN. %PVR correlated inversely with preoperative ipsilateral GFR (r = -0.49, P < 0.01) and directly with advanced pathologic stage, high tumor grade, clear cell histology, and sarcomatoid features (all P < 0.01). PVR≥25% associated with shortened recurrence-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival (all P < 0.01). Male sex, ≥pT3a, tumor grade 4, positive surgical margins, and PVR≥25% independently associated with reduced RFS (all P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Obliteration of normal parenchyma by RCC substantially impacts preoperative renal function and patient selection. Our data suggests that increased PVR is primarily driven by aggressive tumor characteristics and independently associates with reduced RFS, although further studies will be needed to substantiate our findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akira Kazama
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Department of Urology, Molecular Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan
| | - Carlos Munoz-Lopez
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Worapat Attawettayanon
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Songklanagarind Hospital, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
| | - Melissa Boumitri
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Eran Maina
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Zaeem Lone
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Nityam Rathi
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Kieran Lewis
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Rebecca A Campbell
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | | | - Jihad Kaouk
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | | | - Samuel Haywood
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Nima Almassi
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | | | | | - Ryan Ward
- Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland OH
| | - Amy S Nowacki
- Department of Quantitative Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Steven C Campbell
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wang Y, Butaney M, Wilder S, Ghani K, Rogers CG, Lane BR. The evolving management of small renal masses. Nat Rev Urol 2024; 21:406-421. [PMID: 38365895 DOI: 10.1038/s41585-023-00848-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/19/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Abstract
Small renal masses (SRMs) are a heterogeneous group of tumours with varying metastatic potential. The increasing use and improving quality of abdominal imaging have led to increasingly early diagnosis of incidental SRMs that are asymptomatic and organ confined. Despite improvements in imaging and the growing use of renal mass biopsy, diagnosis of malignancy before treatment remains challenging. Management of SRMs has shifted away from radical nephrectomy, with active surveillance and nephron-sparing surgery taking over as the primary modalities of treatment. The optimal treatment strategy for SRMs continues to evolve as factors affecting short-term and long-term outcomes in this patient cohort are elucidated through studies from prospective data registries. Evidence from rapidly evolving research in biomarkers, imaging modalities, and machine learning shows promise in improving understanding of the biology and management of this patient cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuzhi Wang
- Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Mohit Butaney
- Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Samantha Wilder
- Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Khurshid Ghani
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Craig G Rogers
- Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Brian R Lane
- Division of Urology, Corewell Health West, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
- Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rathi N, Attawettayanon W, Kazama A, Yasuda Y, Munoz-Lopez C, Lewis K, Maina E, Wood A, Palacios DA, Li J, Abdallah N, Weight CJ, Eltemamy M, Krishnamurthi V, Abouassaly R, Campbell SC. Practical Prediction of New Baseline Renal Function After Partial Nephrectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:1402-1409. [PMID: 38006535 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14540-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2023] [Accepted: 10/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Partial nephrectomy (PN) is generally preferred for localized renal masses due to strong functional outcomes. Accurate prediction of new baseline glomerular filtration rate (NBGFR) after PN may facilitate preoperative counseling because NBGFR may affect long-term survival, particularly for patients with preoperative chronic kidney disease. Methods for predicting parenchymal volume preservation, and by extension NBGFR, have been proposed, including those based on contact surface area (CSA) or direct measurement of tissue likely to be excised/devascularized during PN. We previously reported that presuming 89% of global GFR preservation (the median value saved from previous, independent analyses) is as accurate as the more subjective/labor-intensive CSA and direct measurement approaches. More recently, several promising complex/multivariable predictive algorithms have been published, which typically include tumor, patient, and surgical factors. In this study, we compare our conceptually simple approach (NBGFRPost-PN = 0.90 × GFRPre-PN) with these sophisticated algorithms, presuming that an even 90% of the global GFR is saved with each PN. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 631 patients with bilateral kidneys who underwent PN at Cleveland Clinic (2012-2014) for localized renal masses with available preoperative/postoperative GFR were analyzed. NBGFR was defined as the final GFR 3-12 months post-PN. Predictive accuracies were assessed from correlation coefficients (r) and mean squared errors (MSE). RESULTS Our conceptually simple approach based on uniform 90% functional preservation had equivalent r values when compared with complex, multivariable models, and had the lowest degree of error when predicting NBGFR post-PN. CONCLUSIONS Our simple formula performs equally well as complex algorithms when predicting NBGFR after PN. Strong anchoring by preoperative GFR and minimal functional loss (≈ 10%) with the typical PN likely account for these observations. This formula is practical and can facilitate counseling about expected postoperative functional outcomes after PN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nityam Rathi
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Worapat Attawettayanon
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Songklanagarind Hospital, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
| | - Akira Kazama
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
- Department of Urology, Division of Molecular Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan
| | - Yosuke Yasuda
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
- Department of Urology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Carlos Munoz-Lopez
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Kieran Lewis
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Eran Maina
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Andrew Wood
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Diego A Palacios
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Jianbo Li
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Nour Abdallah
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | - Mohamed Eltemamy
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | - Robert Abouassaly
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Steven C Campbell
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Alaghehbandan R, Campbell SC, McKenney JK. Evolution in the Pathologic Classification of Renal Neoplasia. Urol Clin North Am 2023; 50:181-189. [PMID: 36948665 DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2023.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2023]
Abstract
The pathologic classification of renal tumors is a dynamic and complex process, which has evolved to a "histomolecular" driven system. Despite advances in molecular characterization, most renal tumors can be diagnosed by morphology with or without using a limited set of immunohistochemical stains. If access to molecular resources and specific immunohistochemical markers is limited, pathologists may face difficulties in following an optimal algorithm to classify renal tumors. In this article, we detail the historical evolution of renal tumor classification, including a synopsis of major changes introduced by the current fifth edition World Health Organization 2022 classification of renal epithelial tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reza Alaghehbandan
- Department of Pathology, Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 2119 E. 96th Street, L25, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
| | - Steven C Campbell
- Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Q10-120, Glickman Tower, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
| | - Jesse K McKenney
- Department of Pathology, Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 2119 E. 96th Street, L25, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rathi N, Attawettayanon W, Yasuda Y, Lewis K, Roversi G, Shah S, Wood A, Munoz-Lopez C, Palacios DA, Li J, Abdallah N, Schober JP, Strother M, Kutikov A, Uzzo R, Weight CJ, Eltemamy M, Krishnamurthi V, Abouassaly R, Campbell SC. Point of care parenchymal volume analyses to estimate split renal function and predict functional outcomes after radical nephrectomy. Sci Rep 2023; 13:6225. [PMID: 37069196 PMCID: PMC10110585 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-33236-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Accepted: 04/10/2023] [Indexed: 04/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Accurate prediction of new baseline GFR (NBGFR) after radical nephrectomy (RN) can inform clinical management and patient counseling whenever RN is a strong consideration. Preoperative global GFR, split renal function (SRF), and renal functional compensation (RFC) are fundamentally important for the accurate prediction of NBGFR post-RN. While SRF has traditionally been obtained from nuclear renal scans (NRS), differential parenchymal volume analysis (PVA) via software analysis may be more accurate. A simplified approach to estimate parenchymal volumes and SRF based on length/width/height measurements (LWH) has also been proposed. We compare the accuracies of these three methods for determining SRF, and, by extension, predicting NBGFR after RN. All 235 renal cancer patients managed with RN (2006-2021) with available preoperative CT/MRI and NRS, and relevant functional data were analyzed. PVA was performed on CT/MRI using semi-automated software, and LWH measurements were obtained from CT/MRI images. RFC was presumed to be 25%, and thus: Predicted NBGFR = 1.25 × Global GFRPre-RN × SRFContralateral. Predictive accuracies were assessed by mean squared error (MSE) and correlation coefficients (r). The r values for the LWH/NRS/software-derived PVA approaches were 0.72/0.71/0.86, respectively (p < 0.05). The PVA-based approach also had the most favorable MSE, which were 120/126/65, respectively (p < 0.05). Our data show that software-derived PVA provides more accurate and precise SRF estimations and predictions of NBGFR post-RN than NRS/LWH methods. Furthermore, the LWH approach is equivalent to NRS, precluding the need for NRS in most patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nityam Rathi
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Worapat Attawettayanon
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Songklanagarind Hospital, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
| | - Yosuke Yasuda
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
- Department of Urology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kieran Lewis
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Gustavo Roversi
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Snehi Shah
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Andrew Wood
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Carlos Munoz-Lopez
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Diego A Palacios
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Jianbo Li
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Nour Abdallah
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Jared P Schober
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urologic Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Marshall Strother
- Department of Urology, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Alexander Kutikov
- Department of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Robert Uzzo
- Department of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | - Mohamed Eltemamy
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | - Robert Abouassaly
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Steven C Campbell
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
| |
Collapse
|