Oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for cT1 renal masses: a comprehensive review

Transperitoneal vs. Retroperitoneal Approach in Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Posterior Renal Tumors: A Retrospective, Multi-Center, Comparative Study

Purpose: The aim of our study is to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic transperitoneal partial nephrectomy (LTPN) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (LRPN) for posterior cT1 renal tumors. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on all patients who consecutively underwent LTPN and LRPN for posterior cT1 renal tumors in three different centers from January 2015 to January 2023. Patients with a single, unilateral, cT1 renal mass, located in the posterior renal surface were included. Patients' data regarding perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were collected from medical records and statistically analyzed and compared. Results: A total of 128 patients was obtained, with 53 patients in the LPTN group and 75 patients in the LRPN group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Warm ischemia time (WIT) (18.8 vs. 22.6 min, p = 0.002) and immediate postoperative eGFR drop (-6.1 vs. -13.0 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.047) were significantly lower in the LPTN group. Estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.043) was significantly lower in the LRPN group. All other perioperative and functional outcomes and complications were similar between the groups. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was lower in the LRPN group, although without statistical significance (7.2% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.258). Surgical success defined by Trifecta (WIT ≤ 25 min, no PSM, and no major postoperative complication) was similar between both approaches. Conclusions: LTPN has significantly shorter WIT and a significantly smaller drop in immediate eGFR when compared to LRPN for posterior renal tumors. On the other hand, LRPN has significantly less EBL than LTPN. LRPN demonstrated fewer PSMs than LTPN, albeit without statistical significance. In terms of overall surgical success, as defined by Trifecta, both approaches achieved similar results.

Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Mid-Term Oncologic Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Background: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is used more and more in present days as a therapy option for surgical treatment of cT1 renal masses. Current guidelines equally recommend open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), or robotic partial nephrectomy (PN). The aim of this review was to analyze the most representative RAPN series in terms of reported oncological outcomes. (2) Methods: A systematic search of Webofscience, PUBMED, Clinicaltrials.gov was performed on 1 August 2022. Studies were considered eligible if they: included patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stage T1, were prospective, used randomized clinical trials (RCT) or retrospective studies, had patients undergo RAPN with a minimum follow-up of 48 months. (3) Results: Reported positive surgical margin rates were from 0 to 10.5%. Local recurrence occurred in up to 3.6% of patients. Distant metastases were reported in up to 6.4% of patients. 5-year cancer free survival (CFS) estimates rates ranged from 86.4% to 98.4%. 5-year cancer specific survival (CSS) estimates rates ranged from 90.1% to 100%, and 5-year overall survival (OS) estimates rated ranged from 82.6% to 97.9%. (4) Conclusions: Data coming from retrospective and prospective series shows very good oncologic outcomes after RAPN. Up to now, 10-year survival outcomes were not reported. Taken together, RAPN deliver similar oncologic performance to OPN and LPN.

[Robot-assisted surgery for renal cell carcinoma - today a standard?]

Twenty years have passed since the first reports on robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery in 2001. However, robotic surgery has not spread to all German urologic departments yet. Hence, one has to question whether robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery can be considered a standard today. Until now, no prospective randomized controlled trials have compared robot-assisted radical nephrectomy with the open or laparoscopic approach. Regardless, laparoscopy and robotics both have proven better perioperative and comparable oncological outcomes than with open nephrectomy. In direct comparison, robot-assisted nephrectomy has no additional benefits over the laparoscopic approach and is less cost-effective. However, reports on robot-assisted level III or IV vena cava tumor thrombectomies illustrate that robotic surgery can be superior to the laparoscopic approach in highly complex interventions. Likewise, no prospective randomized controlled trials have analyzed robot-assisted partial nephrectomy yet. When conducted by experienced surgeons, robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomies can also have lower morbidity compared to the open approach. No consensus has been reached when directly comparing robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. However, evidence is increasing that robot-assisted partial nephrectomy can offer additional benefits, especially for the treatment of highly complex endophytic renal tumors. Thereof, head-to-head comparisons are often impacted by patient- and tumor-related factors, as well as the learning curve of the surgeon, bed-side assistant and the annual caseload of the department. Hence, one has to conclude that robot-assisted kidney tumor surgery has evolved into a standard procedure with good results. The perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery are superior to the open technique at a comparable oncological follow-up. Even if robot-assisted interventions are often more expensive than laparoscopic surgery due to higher costs of acquisition, robotics have the potential to gain superior results especially in very complex tumor surgery. Due to expiring patent protections, new manufacturers and the development of new technologies, the market of robotic surgery will most likely undergo significant changes and its costs will probably decrease within the next years.

Positive Surgical Margins After Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Predict Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes for Clinically Localized Renal Masses

Introduction: For patients with clinically localized renal masses, positive surgical margins (PSMs) after robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) have been associated with a higher risk of disease recurrence, although some studies have challenged this conclusion. Owing to inconsistent reports and a lack of long-term robotic data, the clinical impact of PSM after RPN remains uncertain. We evaluate long-term (>6 years) survival outcomes after RPN in patients with clinically localized disease with respect to surgical margin status. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent RPN for clinically localized renal masses from June 2007 to December 2012 at Washington University School of Medicine. Disease recurrence and overall survival (OS) were stratified on the presence or absence of PSM. The cohort was analyzed to identify patient- and tumor-specific characteristics associated with PSM. Results: We identified 374 RPNs performed from 2007 to 2012 with a mean follow-up time of 77.7 months (SD 32.2 months). PSM was identified in 12 (3.2%) patients. Patients with PSM were at 14-fold increased risk for recurrence with no difference in OS (p < 0.001, p = 0.130, respectively). Patients with PSM had higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (25% vs 6.4%) and greater blood loss (425 mL vs 203 mL). Conclusion: With an extended follow-up period of 77 months after RPN, we found that PSM substantially increased the risk of recurrence without impacting OS. Our finding that PSM may occur more frequently in older patients with COPD must be confirmed in larger studies.

Transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for posterior cT1 renal tumors: A retrospective, two-centers, comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To compare perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes of Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Partial Nephrectomy (LTPN) and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy (LRPN) for posterior, cT1 renal masses (RMs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases of two urologic institutions applying different laparoscopic surgical approaches on posterior cT1 RMs between June 2016 and November 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Data on patient demographics, perioperative data and tumor histology were collected and further analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

Each group consisted of 15 patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable in each group. When compared to LTPN, LRPN was associated with significantly shorter operative time (OT) (115 min versus 199 min, p < 0.05). No significant differences were detected in the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

LRPN is associated with a significantly shorter OT compared to LTPN for posterior cT1 RMs. Both surgical approaches are safe, feasible and credible, demonstrating optimal results.

[New aspects in the treatment of localized renal cell carcinoma]

BACKGROUND

Localized renal cell carcinoma is increasingly relevant in daily urological practice due to earlier diagnosis and higher life expectancy.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze and compare current treatment evidence for localized renal cell carcinoma regarding new aspects of nephron-sparing surgery, the different surgical approaches and focal therapy.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to identify relevant publications from 2018 and 2019.

RESULTS

Prospective randomized trials comparing nephrectomy with partial nephrectomy, the three different surgical approaches with each other, and focal therapy with surgery are still lacking. Positive effects on survival by partial nephrectomy could be demonstrated, even though partial nephrectomy has a higher morbidity than radical nephrectomy. Older patients (>75 years) with advanced localized renal cell carcinoma did not appear to benefit from partial nephrectomy so far, but minimally invasive surgical approaches are underrepresented in such studies. Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy is superior to the open approach, and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy has better results than laparoscopy. Focal therapy of kidney tumors is technically safe and feasible, but relevant comparisons with partial nephrectomy are still lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial nephrectomy is still the gold standard treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma, it should be preferably performed by a robot-assisted approach. Focal therapy can serve as an alternative in highly selected cases.