Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Mid-Term Results

Positive surgical margins may not affect the survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma after partial nephrectomy: A meta-analysis based on 39 studies

Background

So far, whether positive surgical margin(PSM) has adverse effects on the prognosis of patients is still controversial, so we designed this study to systematically evaluate the effect of PSM on the prognosis of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after partial nephrectomy (PN).

Methods

On the basis of three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library) up to May 2022, all case-control studies (CCSs) comparing the effects of PSM and negative surgical margin (NSM) after PN on the oncological results of RCC patients were included. Two evaluators independently conducted a systematic literature search and extracted the data we needed. The methodological quality of all studies was evaluated by the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The odds ratio (OR) was used to describe the results for dichotomous variables, and the meta-analysis was conducted using Cochrane Review Manager 5.2 and Stata 14.2.

Results

A total of 39 studies involving 21461 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that the rates of tumor recurrence (OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.95-5.24; p < 0.00001) and metastasis (OR 4.63, 95% CI 3.11-6.88; p < 0.00001) in the PSM group were significantly higher than those in the NSM group. However, there were no significant differences in the rates of all-cause death (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.92-1.99; p = 0.13) or cancer-specific death (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.94; p = 0.99) between the two groups. In addition, subgroup analyses were carried out according to different average follow-ups, which revealed similar results.

Conclusion

Insignificant differences in survival between the PSM and NSM groups were observed, although significant differences in recurrence and metastasis in the PSM group were reported. Our study supported that close monitoring might be another effective choice for patients with PSM after PN. Considering the possible limitations, we recommended cautious interpretation of our results.

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors 7cm and above. Perioperative outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess and report the outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy )LPN) for T2 renal masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of patients undergoing LPN for clinically localized renal masses ≥7cm between the years 2005-2016. Descriptive analyses were generated for demographics, lesion characteristics, perioperative variables (operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), intra-operative and post-operative complications (IOC and POC) and pathologic variables (pathology, subtype and Fuhrman grade).

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients underwent LPN for a T2 renal mass at our institution between 2005 and early 2016 of which 19 were males. The mean age was 66 (52-72). All procedures were transperitoneal with 16 on the right and 11 on the left. Median operative time was 200 minutes (IQR 181-236) and median WIT 19 minutes (IQR 16-23). EBL was 125mL (IQR 75-175). One case was converted to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy due to suspected tumor thrombus in the renal vein. Surgical margins were positive in one renal tumor in a patient with multiple tumors. There was a total of 2 IOC (7.4%) and 3 POC (11%) classified as Clavien grade 3.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this series is the first to describe the outcomes of LPN for cT2 renal masses. In our series, LPN for larger renal masses appears feasible with favorable perioperative outcomes. Additional data are needed to further explore the benefits of minimally invasive surgical approaches to larger renal masses.

Management of Small Renal Masses: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To provide recommendations for the management options for patients with small renal masses (SRMs). Methods By using a literature search and prospectively defined study selection, we sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, prospective comparative observational studies, and retrospective studies published from 2000 through 2015. Outcomes included recurrence-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. Results Eighty-three studies, including 20 systematic reviews and 63 primary studies, met the eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. Recommendations On the basis of tumor-specific findings and competing risks of mortality, all patients with an SRM should be considered for a biopsy when the results may alter management. Active surveillance should be an initial management option for patients who have significant comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Partial nephrectomy (PN) for SRMs is the standard treatment that should be offered to all patients for whom an intervention is indicated and who possess a tumor that is amenable to this approach. Percutaneous thermal ablation should be considered an option if complete ablation can reliably be achieved. Radical nephrectomy for SRMs should only be reserved for patients who possess a tumor of significant complexity that is not amenable to PN or for whom PN may result in unacceptable morbidity even when performed at centers with expertise. Referral to a nephrologist should be considered if chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m²) or progressive chronic kidney disease occurs after treatment, especially if associated with proteinuria.

The effect of discrepancy between radiologic size and pathologic tumor size in renal cell cancer

To investigate the difference between preoperative radiologic tumor size (RTS) and postoperative pathologic tumor size (PTS) in patients who underwent nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. We retrospectively reviewed 257 patients who received preoperative computed tomography (CT) before radical or partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma from January 2010 to May 2015 in Huashan Hospital, Shanghai. RTS was defined as the largest diameter of tumor measured by CT and PTS as the largest diameter of tumor measured in the surgical specimens. Among all subjects, mean RTS was larger than PTS (4.57 ± 2.15 vs. 4.02 ± 2.15 cm, P = 0.004) with a discrepancy of 0.55 cm. When the patients were categorized according to T stage, the mean RTS was greater than PTS in the following groups: ≤4 cm group (2.90 vs. 2.59 cm, P = 0.02), >4 and ≤7 cm group (5.08 vs. 4.38 cm, P < 0.0001), except for >7 cm (8.9 vs. 8.0 cm, P = 0.142). Among patients with clear cell RCC, the mean RTS was larger than the mean PTS (4.57 vs. 3.98 cm, P = 0.004), similar result was also seen in non-clear cell group (4.54 vs. 4.16 cm, P = 0.045). The mean RTS was larger than PTS for the approach of radical nephrectomy (RN) (5.26 vs. 4.64 cm, P = 0.01), but not for the partial nephrectomy (PN) (3.34 vs. 2.92 cm, P = 0.067). Of the 257 renal cancers, 76 tumors were down-staged when comparing radiographic and pathologic tumor maximal diameter. The proportion of down-staged tumors had no difference between different genders (P = 0.283), different surgery approaches (P = 0.102), and different pathology types (P = 0.209). In this study, we found that renal tumor size was overestimated by radiography compared with pathologic results, and the T staging of some tumors was down-staged. But for patients who underwent PN, there was no difference between RTS and PTS. These results suggested that the PN should be considered first for the T1b renal tumor when tumor size was close to 4 cm, while the recommendation level of PN for T1b tumor was grade B according to EAU guidelines.

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) compares favorably to traditional open nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in terms of oncologic and surgical principles for kidney tumors. Studies have shown the modality to be feasible with similar oncologic efficacy and superior renal functional outcomes compared with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for tumors. The main advantages of LPN include marked improvements in estimated blood loss, decreased surgical site pain, shorter postoperative convalescence, better cosmesis, and nephron preservation. This review article evaluates the literature regarding LPN and discusses the main steps of the operation, the perioperative workup and management, surgical complications, and its role in the surgical management of kidney masses.

The management of small renal masses: what is likely to change?

The diffusion of imaging has determined an increased discovery of small renal masses (SRMs). Recent publications have been reviewed to present the state of the art in the management of SRMs and to try to foresee the next steps in this challenging condition. The role of percutaneous biopsies is expanding, since management algorithms include also active surveillance and ablative therapies. However up to 30% of biopsies fail to provide histological diagnosis and there is the risk of under-evaluating high-grade tumors. Active surveillance has been proposed in patients with reduced life expectancy and numerous comorbidities. The average growth of SRMs is slow, and metastatic progression has been observed in about 1%. Ablative therapies (cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation) are used in patients with relevant comorbidities or advanced age and unfit for surgery, but who desire active treatment. Compared to conservative surgical treatment both techniques have increased local progression rates, while metastatic progression is relatively low.Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the recommended curative treatment for SRMs and can be performed open, laparoscopically or robotically. Open PN represents the benchmark, with similar cancer specific survival and better preservation of renal function compared to nephrectomy. Laparoscopy is comparable to open surgery in terms of oncologic results, but a long learning curve is necessary. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted PN appear superior to laparoscopy and the learning curve is shorter, but data for oncological results are still immature. With the increasing diffusion of robotic technology it is likely more SRMs will be managed with this approach.

Outcomes and limitations of laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objective of this review article is to summarize and critically analyze the studies published in the previous year and report perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent case series studies evaluating LPN confirmed the good oncologic results of this approach at intermediate and long-term follow-ups. Recent studies investigating RAPN confirmed the promising perioperative outcomes reported in the initial case series. Many studies tested and demonstrated the feasibility of both procedures in the treatment of very complex cases represented by tumors larger than 4 cm, hilar/central tumors, endophytic tumors, or tumors located in solitary kidney. Comparative studies confirm advantages in favor of RAPN in comparison with LPN, mainly in terms of warm ischemia time and perioperative outcomes. A recent matched pair analysis showed equivalent perioperative and functional outcomes between RAPN and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).

SUMMARY

LPN and above all RAPN represent valid alternatives to OPN in the conservative treatment of renal tumors. Both procedures can be proposed also for the treatment of complex cases. Further, well conducted, comparative studies between RAPN and OPN are needed to test the ability of RAPN as an alternative to OPN in the treatment of more complex cases.