Simplified PADUA Renal (SPARE) Nephrometry Scoring System: External Validation, Interobserver Variability, and Comparison with RENAL and PADUA in a Single-center Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Series

BACKGROUND

The RENAL (radius [R], exophytic/endophytic [E], nearness to collecting system/sinus [N], anterior/posterior [A], and location relative to polar lines [L]) and the PADUA (preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical classification) scores help in quantifying tumor complexity. However, nephrometry scoring systems have low interobserver variability. To simplify and improve score reproducibility, a new Simplified PADUA Renal (SPARE) scoring system was introduced.

OBJECTIVE

To externally validate the SPARE nephrometry scoring system and to determine its interobserver variability.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 202 patients were included in the analysis. We performed a retrospective analysis of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) cases for a single renal mass performed at a single academic institution during the period 2008-2018. For each renal mass, PADUA, RENAL, and SPARE nephrometry scores were calculated.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Three urology residents (URs), two urology attendings (UAs), two radiology residents (RRs), and one radiology attending (RA) retrospectively reviewed computed tomography scans blinded to clinical outcomes. The accuracy of the SPARE nephrometry score in the prediction of any complication (Clavien grade ≥1) was compared with other scoring systems in a univariable and a multivariate fashion. The area under the curve (AUC) and kappa statistics were used to assess interobserver variability of the SPARE score.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The SPARE score was not inferior to the PADUA and RENAL scores (AUC 0.61, 0.59, and 0.57, respectively, p = 0.43). Patients with intermediate to high SPARE scores had longer operative time (158 vs 135 min, p = 0.10) and a higher rate of complications (28% vs 14%, p = 0.012). Univariable analysis predicting overall complications showed that RRs performed slightly better than URs and UAs using the SPARE score. Interobserver agreement was 84% between an RA and an RR (kappa 0.42), 85% between an RA and a UA (kappa 0.39), and 85% between an RA and a UR (kappa 0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings confirm that the SPARE nephrometry scoring system is a reproducible and easy tool offering overall fair interobserver agreement regardless of years of training or type of practice, while maintaining the predictive capabilities of more established nephrometry scores.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, a novel and simple classification system was assessed using a sample of cases from our institution to define surgical complexity renal masses detected on radiological imaging. Our findings suggest that this tool can be useful in clinical practice to facilitate the characterization of renal masses and predict the complications of surgical treatment.

Robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of urologic cancers: recent advances

INTRODUCTION

As the medical field is moving toward personalized and tailored approaches, we entered the era of precision surgery for the management of genitourinary cancers1. This is facilitated by the implementation of new technologies, among which robotic surgery stands out for the significant impact in the surgical field over the last two decades.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the latest evidence on robotic surgery for the treatment of urologic cancers, including prostate, kidney, bladder, testis, and penile cancer. Functional and oncologic outcomes, new surgical techniques, new imaging modalities, and new robotic platforms are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic surgery had a growing role in the management of genitourinary cancers over the past 10 years. Despite a lack of high-quality evidence comparing the effectiveness of robotic to open surgery, the robotic approach allowed a larger adoption of a minimally invasive surgical approach, translating into lower surgical morbidity and shorter hospital stay. New robotic platforms might allow to explore novel surgical approaches, and new technologies might facilitate surgical navigation and intraoperative identification of anatomical structures, allowing a more tailored and precise surgery. It is an exciting time for robotic surgery, and upcoming technological advances will offer better outcomes to urologic cancer patients.

Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. When and how?

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature evaluating the role of the extended pelvic lymph node dissectione PLND during robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in the management of PCa patients, as well as the preoperative clinic pathologic factors that predict lymph node metastases (LNM). The technique and current outcomes of robotic ePLND will be presented.

METHODS

Medline®/Pubmed® were searched up to august 2018 to find comparative studies of different anatomic limits of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during RARP, open or pure laparoscopic surgery that reported number of nodes retrieved, oncologic outcomes and complications. The search was complemented to identify studies that evaluated diagnostic images and factors that predict LNM. Overall, 44 articles were included for full text review.

RESULTS

There is not an imaging technique with an acceptable performance to select patients for PLND, the decision to perform a PLND is based on clinical characteristics described on validated nomograms. Median lymph node yield at RARP range from 5 to 21 depending on the extent of PLND, positivity rate of LN as high as 37% depending on the risk stratification of patients. Robot-assisted can be carried out to any extent with lymph node yields and safety concerns comparable to the open approach.

CONCLUSION

Extended pelvic lymph node dissection is recommended to be performed at the time of RARP in intermediate and high-risk patients and cannot be replaced by other modalities. A benefit in terms of oncologic outcomes remains to be established. The robot assisted approach offers shorter length of hospital stay, lower transfusion rates and comparable outcomes compared to other surgical approaches.