Scosyrev Emil, Wu Kevin, Levey Helen R, Agrawal Vineet, Beckham Carla, Wu Guan, Messing Edward
Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Urol Pract. 2014 May;1(1):27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.urpr.2014.02.009. Epub 2014 Mar 4.
In EORTC trial 30904 of partial versus radical nephrectomy overall survival was significantly better in the radical nephrectomy arm. However, many observational studies reported better survival after partial than radical nephrectomy. We present an updated systematic review of observational studies of overall survival after partial versus radical nephrectomy with assessment of quality of evidence.
The literature search was performed until December 31, 2013, and all studies reporting overall survival after partial vs radical nephrectomy were included in the initial review. Further inclusion criteria for complete review were malignant tumors 7 cm or smaller, or benign tumors of any size, and survival analysis performed with adjustment for confounding variables. Studies not meeting these criteria were excluded from full review because of selection bias in favor of patients treated with partial nephrectomy who were younger and with less advanced tumors.
A total of 34 studies were included in the initial review and 13 were included in the full review. The 13 studies were based on the SEER database (6) or on institutional cohorts (7). In 8 of the 13 studies the estimated hazard ratios were significantly below 1, indicating better overall survival after partial nephrectomy, while in the remaining 5 studies estimated HR was not significantly different from 1. Median HR was 0.80 (interquartile range 0.57 to 0.96, absolute range 0.40 to 1.10).
In most observational studies overall survival was better after partial than after radical nephrectomy. However, because residual confounding could be present despite adjustment for measured covariates, another randomized trial of partial vs radical nephrectomy may be needed to confirm or refute the findings of EORTC 30904.
在欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织(EORTC)的30904号试验中,肾癌根治性切除术组的总生存率显著高于部分肾切除术组。然而,许多观察性研究报告称,部分肾切除术后的生存率优于根治性肾切除术。我们对部分肾切除术与根治性肾切除术术后总生存率的观察性研究进行了更新的系统评价,并对证据质量进行了评估。
文献检索截至2013年12月31日,所有报告部分肾切除术与根治性肾切除术后总生存率的研究均纳入初始评价。完整评价的进一步纳入标准为肿瘤直径7cm或更小的恶性肿瘤,或任何大小的良性肿瘤,且生存分析需对混杂变量进行校正。由于存在有利于部分肾切除术治疗的年轻患者且肿瘤分期较低的选择偏倚,不符合这些标准的研究被排除在完整评价之外。
初始评价共纳入34项研究,完整评价纳入13项研究。这13项研究基于监测、流行病学与最终结果(SEER)数据库(6项)或机构队列(7项)。在13项研究中的8项中,估计的风险比显著低于1,表明部分肾切除术后总生存率更好,而在其余5项研究中,估计的风险比与1无显著差异。风险比中位数为0.80(四分位间距0.57至0.96,绝对范围0.40至1.10)。
在大多数观察性研究中,部分肾切除术后的总生存率优于根治性肾切除术。然而,尽管对测量的协变量进行了校正,但仍可能存在残余混杂因素,因此可能需要另一项部分肾切除术与根治性肾切除术的随机试验来证实或反驳EORTC 30904的研究结果。