Similar Survival Seen With Partial, Radical Nephrectomy in Clinical T2 Renal Masses

Article

Partial nephrectomy may be just as effective as radical nephrectomy for the surgical removal of clinical T2 renal masses, results of a new study indicate.

Partial nephrectomy may be just as oncologically effective as radical nephrectomy for the surgical removal of clinical T2 renal masses, results of a new study indicate. Patients who underwent a partial compared with a radical procedure had similar rates of progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival.

According to the study, partial nephrectomy is currently the preferred surgical option for small renal masses; however, there are fewer data supporting the use of partial nephrectomy compared with radical nephrectomy in clinical T2 renal masses.

Ryan P. Kopp, MD, of UC San Diego Health System, and colleagues designed this study to evaluated survival outcomes in patients undergoing the two procedures, controlling for RENAL nephrectomy score when available. The study included 202 patients with clinical T2 renal masses who underwent radical nephrectomy (n = 122) or partial nephrectomy (n = 80) between July 2002 and June 2012. For comparison, patients were divided according to whether they had RENAL scores of 10 or more or less than 10.

The researchers found no significant differences in overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or progression-free survival between patients who underwent radical nephrectomy and those who underwent partial nephrectomy.

“When the entire cohort (partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy) was broken down into cT2a and cT2b groups, there was no difference in overall survival and cancer-specific survival between the T2a and T2b groups,” the researchers wrote in BJU International. “Conversely, progression-free survival was significantly worse for cT2b compared with cT2a, which may be consistent with TNM 2010 separation of T2a and T2b, while a greater proportion of radical nephrectomies in the cT2b group may be evidence of selection bias.”

The analysis also revealed  that patients with a RENAL score of less than 10 had significantly better overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and progression-free survival compared with those with scores of 10 or greater (P < .001 for all). In fact, patients with a score of 10 or greater had a more than fivefold risk of disease recurrence and a sevenfold risk of death from any cause.

Patients undergoing the two procedures had similar overall complications rates, but those patients undergoing radical nephrectomy did have higher rates of major complications.

Recent Videos
Observing changes in the tumor microenvironment before and after a biopsy may elucidate how kidney cancer cells interact with immune cells.
Various kidney cancer trials have combined agents such as A2a receptor inhibitors with immunotherapy backbones to potentially improve treatment outcomes.
Leveraging novel agents, innovative clinical trial designs, and correlative studies may improve the treatment of patients with kidney cancer.
An “avalanche of funding” has propelled the kidney cancer field forward, says Jason Muhitch, PhD.
Kidney cancer advocacy efforts have spread the urgency and importance of funding research in the field to members of Congress.
Advocacy efforts have yielded a dramatic increase in kidney cancer research, according to Elizabeth P. Henske, MD.
A review of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma shows radiological tumor burden as an independent prognostic factor for survival.
A phase 2 trial is assessing ubamatamab in patients with MUC16-expressing SMARCB1-deficient renal medullary carcinoma and epithelioid sarcoma.
Analysis of 2 phase 1 trials compared gut biome diversity between standard of care with or without CBM588 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Although no responses were observed in 11 patients receiving abemaciclib monotherapy, combination therapies with abemaciclib may offer clinical benefit.
Related Content