Skip to main content

Optimizing Surgical Procedures in Renal Cancers to Improve Patient Outcomes

47kviews
Editorial27 September 2022
Editorial: Optimizing surgical procedures in renal cancers to improve patient outcomes

Clinical stage migration led to the diagnosis of smaller renal tumors over a period of several decades; however, the stage distribution of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has now remained relatively stable or 15 years in the Untied States and likely in other countries where use of cross-sectional imaging is pervasive [1]. Minimally-invasive approaches and a push for nephron-sparing procedures has decreased morbidity related to perioperative outcomes and development of surgically induced chronic kidney disease [2,3]. The present Research Topic collection, Optimizing Surgical Procedures in Renal Cancers to Improve Patient Outcomes, includes several relevant review articles and original studies which highlight the potential role of some of these advances and future directions for optimizing surgical management of RCC.Radical nephrectomy is the historic gold standard for the treatment of localized RCC with the laparoscopic approach demonstrating equivalent oncologic control but improved perioperative outcomes over the open approach [4]. Since the introduction of robotics, robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy (RARN) has taken over some of the market share from both laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) and the open approach. Li et al performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis showing that perioperative outcomes were no different for RARN compared to LRN in a pooled population of 1,832 patients [5]. The findings are important as they provide further evidence that the choice of RARN over LRN is not justified by superiority of either approach. Rather, the pressure to utilize purchased robots, surgeon preference, and patient demand from marketing led to the migration of procedures toward RARN. Costs are another concern given the increased operating room and supply costs for RARN [6,7]. However, there may be cases where RARN enables successful performance of a minimally-invasive approach as an alternative to open radical nephrectomy where a surgeon would not have been comfortable attempting LRN [8,9]. Although oncologic control for RARN and LRN raised few concerns over open radical nephrectomy, the push toward minimally-invasive nephron-sparing surgery for amenable tumors added additional questions given the lack of tactile feedback and potential risk for a positive surgical margin (PSM). You et al. perform a systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) had similar recurrence and cancer-specific survival rates but with improved perioperative outcomes relative to open partial nephrectomy [10]. The findings are notable given the breath of cohort studies to date, but they also found that PSM rates were slightly higher for LPN in the overall sample although rates for cT1a patients were no different. Notably, while the lower increase in serum creatinine for LPN is to be interpreted with caution, a recent randomized trial from Brazil totaling 208 patients suggested the same result of better kidney function preservation for LPN [11].The migration toward nephron-sparing surgery may also have implications for pediatric renal tumors; a meta-analysis by Chen et al. suggests nephron-sparing surgery could be considered for Wilms tumor although the sample was small with most of the 297 patients in the nephron-sparing group coming from the SIOP (International Society of Pediatric Oncology) experience or data from SEER [12,13]. Currently, the Children's Oncology Group suggests use of nephron-sparing surgery in management of bilateral tumors or unilateral tumors <4cm in size if deterioration of renal function may be expected.When considering nephron-sparing options, tumor complexity is a critical piece of the decision process along with other clinical and patient factors. The relative risks of partial nephrectomy increase relative to other options (i.e. active surveillance, thermal ablation, and radical nephrectomy) when operating on more complex tumors. As a novel option to other well known nephrometry scores to quantity complexity, Zhang et al. describe the "3S+f" system which includes components such as size, site (location -lateral/upper vs. medial/lower), and side (distance to hilum) which are represented in the RENAL and PADUA systems [14]. They also include evaluation of perinephric fat rated from 0 to 3 points ranging from none to sticky/thick on cross-sectional imaging. The association of "3S+f" was equivalent to RENAL and PADUA for predicting perioperative outcomes.In another study, Jiang et al. focus on complex renal tumors where perioperative outcomes for minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy may be of highest concern; they perform a review evaluating application of 3D printing technology to minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy (LPN or robotic-assisted LPN (RALPN)) for complex renal tumors finding that 3D-preoperative assessment was associated with shorter operative time, shorter warm ischemia time, less blood loss, better preservation of renal function, and fewer complications [15]. An additional novel option during RALPN for complex tumors is described by Bai et al. where they applied a renal artery balloon catheter to feasibly achieve cold ischemia by perfusing lactated Ringer's solution [16].Over time, it has become clear that renal function after partial nephrectomy is more a function of preserved kidney parenchymal mass than of warm ischemia time when the latter is not unduly prolonged [17]. However, consideration of tumor enucleation over a standard margin approach and avoidance of suture renorrhaphy are additional factors that may optimize postoperative renal function [18,19]. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Xu et al. report on 13 studies suggesting improved perioperative outcomes and better preservation of renal function with tumor enucleation over standard margin partial nephrectomy without compromising oncologic outcomes [20]. By leveraging the tumor pseudocapsule, parenchymal preservation is maximized with tumor enucleation. The reduced trauma induced by tumor enucleation also enables consideration of avoiding a suture renography. In a propensity score matched analysis, Zhang et al. reported their experience with conventional vs. sutureless LPN performed via an enucleation technique; they found avoidance of suture renography was associated with less decrease in eGFR [21].We have made great progress in techniques, technology, and understanding over the past two decades to improve outcomes for patients receiving surgery for renal tumors. The present collection highlights some of the progress and trends in management over time. Future directions include evaluating surgical approaches and timing of surgery for high risk and locally advanced RCC as options for perioperative systemic therapy continue to evolve and a reassessment of the role of surgery for metastatic RCC in the era of immuno-oncology agents [22][23][24][25].

1,297 views

2 citations

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
14 July 2022
A “3S+f” Nephrometry Score System to Predict the Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Nephron-Sparing Surgery
Shudong Zhang, 8 more and Lulin Ma

2,705 views

3 citations

2,851 views

18 citations

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
29 October 2020
Laparoscopic Versus Open Partial Nephrectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Surgical, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes
Chengyu You, 6 more and Anguo Wang
Purpose: To summarize and analyze the current evidence about surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes between the LPN and OPN. Materials and Methods: Through a systematical search of multiple scientific databases in March 2020, we performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. Meanwhile, we assessed the quality of the relevant evidence according to the framework in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: A total of 26 studies with 8095 patients were included. There was no statistical difference between the LPN and OPN in the terms of operation time(p=0.13), intraoperative complications(p=0.94), recurrence (p=0.56), cancer specific survival(p=0.72), disease free survival (p=0.72) and variations of estimated glomerular filtration rate(p=0.31). The LPN group had a significantly less estimated blood loss (P<0.00001), lower blood transfusion(p=0.04), shorter length of hospital stay(p<0.00001), lower total complications(p=0.03) and postoperative complications(p=0.02), higher positive surgical margin(p=0.005), higher overall survival((p<0.00001),and less increased serum creatinine(p=0.002).The subgroup analysis showed that no clinically meaningful differences were found for T1a tumors in terms of operation time(p=0.11),and positive surgical margin(p=0.23). In addition, the subgroup analysis also suggested that less estimated blood loss(p<0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay(p<0.00001) were associated with the LPN group for T1a tumors. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that the LPN is a feasible and safe alternative to the OPN, with comparable surgical, oncologic and functional outcomes. However, the results should be applied prudently in clinic because of the low quality of evidence. Further quality studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness LPN and its postoperative quality of life compared with OPN.
Laparoscopic Versus Open Partial Nephrectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Surgical, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

7,665 views

48 citations

Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted vs. Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
18 September 2020
Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted vs. Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Jinze Li, 5 more and Qiang Wei
Background: The use of robot-assisted radical nephrectomy (RARN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has increased in recent years, but the advantages of RARN over laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes between RARN and LRN. Methods: We systematically searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and CNKI databases to identify eligible comparative studies. The parameters were perioperative outcomes including operating time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), conversion rate, and complications. Stata 15.0 software was used for the meta-analysis. Results: Seven studies with 1,832 patients were included in the analysis. Among them, 532 underwent RARN and 840 underwent LRN for renal cell carcinoma. There were no significant differences in OT (weighted mean difference [WMD], 29.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.31, 58.41; p = 0.05), EBL (WMD, –4.56; 95% CI, –29.79, 20.67; p = 0.72), LOS (WMD, –0.34; 95% CI, –0.68, 0.00; p = 0.05), conversion rate (WMD, 2.67; 95% CI, 0.68, 10.46; p = 0.05), transfusion rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% CI, 0.74, 2.27; p = 0.36), intraoperative complications (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61, 2.12; p = 0.62), and postoperative complications (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.68, 1.67; p = 0.62) between the two groups. Conclusion: RARN was not superior to LRN in patients with RCC in terms of perioperative outcomes. Before establishing conclusive clinical recommendations, high-quality prospective large-scale randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed.

5,905 views

34 citations

Effectiveness of Nephron Sparing Surgery and Radical Nephrectomy in the Management of Unilateral Wilms Tumor: A Meta-Analysis
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
4 September 2020
Effectiveness of Nephron Sparing Surgery and Radical Nephrectomy in the Management of Unilateral Wilms Tumor: A Meta-Analysis
Hongkun Chen, 1 more and Cheng Qian
Background: Unilateral Wilms tumour is the most common renal malignancy in the paediatric population. Although the onset of surgical intervention like radical nephrectomy has substantially reduced the mortality rate, recent evidence has raised concerns regarding several post-operative complications associated with this procedure. Nephron sparing surgery has been reported to avoid such post-operative complications that too with a high technical success rate. However, no attempt to date has been made to synthesize the evidence comparing the efficacy of radical nephrectomy and nephron sparing surgery for managing unilateral Wilms tumour. Methods and results: To meta-statistically compare the efficiency of radical nephrectomy with nephron sparing surgery for managing unilateral Wilms tumour a systematic identification of literature was performed according to PRISMA guidelines on 4 academic databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE & CENTRAL. A meta-analysis comparing renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate), survival rate and rate of relapse was performed to compare the efficacy of radical nephrectomy and nephron sparing surgery. Out of 1,283 records, 20 articles including 5,246 children (mean age: 4.3 ± 3.0 years) were included in this review. Radical nephrectomy was performed on 11 of the included studies, whereas nephron sparing surgery was performed on five studies. Two studies compared the efficacy of both interventions. The meta-analysis reveals the beneficial effects of nephron sparing surgery (Hedge’s g: 0.76) as compared to radical nephrectomy (-0.16) for the estimated glomerular filtration rate for children with unilateral Wilms tumour. Moreover, higher survivability (0.59) and lesser occurrence of relapse were (-1.0) also reported for cases operated with nephron sparing surgery. Conclusion: The current meta-analysis recommends the use of nephron sparing surgery for unilateral Wilms tumour. The procedure accounts for higher survivability, postoperative renal function and lesser incidence of relapse as compared to radical nephrectomy.

6,552 views

30 citations

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
4 June 2019
Tumor Enucleation vs. Partial Nephrectomy for T1 Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Congcong Xu, 3 more and Yichun Zheng
Tumor Enucleation vs. Partial Nephrectomy for T1 Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Purpose: Tumor enucleation (TE) and partial nephrectomy (PN) have both become main treatment strategies for T1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC), despite the discrepancy between their safety margin. We performed a meta-analysis on all the relevant trials in order to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of TE with those of PN for RCC treatment. Methods: In this meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies were included if they compared TE and PN therapy in patients with localized renal cancer. The main outcomes extracted were perioperative data and postoperative outcomes. Subgroups for analyses were undertaken according to tumor size and duration of follow up. Data were pooled using the generic variance method with a fixed or random effects model and expressed as mean differences or odds ratios with 95% CI. Results: A total of 13 studies containing 1792 patients undergoing TE and 3068 undergoing PN were identified. Our study showed that the patients received TE had significantly shorter operative time (MD = -28.46, 95% CI =-42.09, -14.83, P < 0.0001) , less hospital day (MD = -0.68, 95% CI =-1.04, -0.31, P = 0.0003), less estimate blood loss (MD = -59.90, 95% CI =-93.23, -26.58, P = 0.0004) and smaller change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (fixed effect: MD = 4.66, 95% CI =1.67, 7.66, P = 0.002), fewer complications (fixed effect: OR = 0.65, 95% CI =0.50, 0.85, P = 0.001) compared with those received PN. However, there were no significant differences in terms of warm ischemic time, positive margin rates, recurrence rates and survival rates between the two groups. All the subgroup analyses presented consistent results with the overall analyses. Conclusions: Our findings suggested that TE is not only was less-traumatizing and beneficial for recovery, but also better for renal function protection. Moreover, it didn’t show the evidence of an increase relapse rate or mortality rate when compared with PN.

6,204 views

30 citations