OBJECTIVES: In recent years many long-term data have suggested that nephron sparing surgery can be considered as an effective method of treatment also in patients with small, solitary, unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Generally, partial nephrectomy is performed for peripheral tumors and usually is limited to imperative indication for central tumors to avoid hemodialysis. We retrospectively evaluate the value of tumor location on technical and oncological results, particularly in patients with elective indication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 2002, 112 patients underwent nephron sparing surgery at our institution. The tumor was centrally and peripherally located in 22 and in 90 cases, respectively. The tumor was discovered in 13 (56%) central and in 57 (63%) peripheral tumors incidentally. The indication was imperative in 12 and elective in 10 patients for central group, while it was imperative in 34 and elective in 56 patients for peripheral group. RESULTS: The mean renal ischemia time was longer in central group compared to peripheral group (20.81 versus 18.8 minutes p<0.05) and the collecting system was violated more frequently in central group (53% versus 28% p<0.05). Postoperative complications were higher for central tumors compared to peripheral tumors (18% versus 4% p<0.05) but the ultimate mean serum creatinine level was similar for central and peripheral tumors (1.36 versus 1.22 mg/dl). The mean tumor size was 39.69 mm in central group and 32.77 mm in peripheral group (p<0.05). The mean diameter of central tumors in imperative indication was 42 mm while in elective indication was 32 mm (p<0.05). Pathological tumor stage was T1 to T3 in 18 (82%), 1 (4%) and 3 (14%) cases in central group and in 81 (88%), 6 (7%) and 5 (5%) cases in peripheral group. Grades was 1 to 3 in 4 (18%), 15 (68%) and 3 (14%) cases in central group and in 21 (23%), 61 (66%) and 10 (11%) cases in peripheral group. There was no difference in 5-year cancer specific survival (91% versus 98%) or postoperative local tumor recurrences (9% versus 6%) in central tumors compared to peripheral tumors and there was no local recurrence in elective partial nephrectomy performed in central tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Nephron sparing surgery is technically more demanding in patients with central tumors. However there were no significant differences in cancer specific survival and local recurrence between centrally versus peripherally located tumors. Elective partial nephrectomy can be performed also in patients with central tumors as long as really less than 4 cm.
Role of nephron sparing surgery in the treatment of centrally located renal tumors / Martorana G; Lupo S; Brunocilla E; Concetti S; Malizia M; Vece E. - In: ARCHIVIO ITALIANO DI UROLOGIA ANDROLOGIA. - ISSN 1124-3562. - STAMPA. - 76(2):(2004), pp. 51-55.
Role of nephron sparing surgery in the treatment of centrally located renal tumors.
MARTORANA, GIUSEPPE;BRUNOCILLA, EUGENIO;CONCETTI, SERGIO;
2004
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In recent years many long-term data have suggested that nephron sparing surgery can be considered as an effective method of treatment also in patients with small, solitary, unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Generally, partial nephrectomy is performed for peripheral tumors and usually is limited to imperative indication for central tumors to avoid hemodialysis. We retrospectively evaluate the value of tumor location on technical and oncological results, particularly in patients with elective indication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 2002, 112 patients underwent nephron sparing surgery at our institution. The tumor was centrally and peripherally located in 22 and in 90 cases, respectively. The tumor was discovered in 13 (56%) central and in 57 (63%) peripheral tumors incidentally. The indication was imperative in 12 and elective in 10 patients for central group, while it was imperative in 34 and elective in 56 patients for peripheral group. RESULTS: The mean renal ischemia time was longer in central group compared to peripheral group (20.81 versus 18.8 minutes p<0.05) and the collecting system was violated more frequently in central group (53% versus 28% p<0.05). Postoperative complications were higher for central tumors compared to peripheral tumors (18% versus 4% p<0.05) but the ultimate mean serum creatinine level was similar for central and peripheral tumors (1.36 versus 1.22 mg/dl). The mean tumor size was 39.69 mm in central group and 32.77 mm in peripheral group (p<0.05). The mean diameter of central tumors in imperative indication was 42 mm while in elective indication was 32 mm (p<0.05). Pathological tumor stage was T1 to T3 in 18 (82%), 1 (4%) and 3 (14%) cases in central group and in 81 (88%), 6 (7%) and 5 (5%) cases in peripheral group. Grades was 1 to 3 in 4 (18%), 15 (68%) and 3 (14%) cases in central group and in 21 (23%), 61 (66%) and 10 (11%) cases in peripheral group. There was no difference in 5-year cancer specific survival (91% versus 98%) or postoperative local tumor recurrences (9% versus 6%) in central tumors compared to peripheral tumors and there was no local recurrence in elective partial nephrectomy performed in central tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Nephron sparing surgery is technically more demanding in patients with central tumors. However there were no significant differences in cancer specific survival and local recurrence between centrally versus peripherally located tumors. Elective partial nephrectomy can be performed also in patients with central tumors as long as really less than 4 cm.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
