Department of Urology, UC San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Moores UCSD Cancer Center, UC San Diego School of Medicine, 3855 Health Science Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
World J Urol. 2024 Sep 6;42(1):508. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05169-w.
To compare outcomes of radical (RN) and partial nephrectomy (PN) in Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma (sRCC) utilizing a large national cohort. As RN is the reference standard for localized RCC with clinically aggressive features, PN in sRCC has been seldom studied.
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2019 for patients who underwent PN and RN for sRCC (T1-T3N0-N1M0). We performed multivariable analyses (MVA) to determine factors associated with PN and all-cause mortality (ACM), and Kaplan-Meier Analysis (KMA) for overall survival (OS) in Charlson 0 patients who underwent PN vs. RN according to clinical stage.
The cohort consisted of 5,265 patients [RN 4,582 (87.0%)/PN 683 (13.0%)]. Increased odds of receiving PN was associated with papillary RCC (OR = 1.69, p = 0.015); inversely with increasing age (OR = 0.99, p = 0.004), cT2-cT3 (OR = 0.23, p < 0.001), and cN1 (OR = 0.2, p < 0.001). Worsened ACM was associated with positive margins (HR = 1.59, p < 0.001), male (HR = 1.1, p = 0.044), Charlson [Formula: see text]2 (HR = 1.47, p < 0.001), cT2-cT3 (HR 1.17-1.39, p < 0.001-0.035), and cN1 (HR = 1.59, p < 0.001). Improved ACM was noted with PN (HR = 0.64, p < 0.001), increasing household income (HR = 0.77-0.79, p < 0.001), and private insurance (HR = 0.80, p = 0.018). KMA showed PN had improved 5-year OS compared to RN in cT1 (86.5% vs. 63.2%, p < 0.001), and cT3 (61.0% vs. 44.0% p < 0.001), but not cT2 (p = 0.67).
In select patients, PN with negative margins may not compromise outcomes and may provide benefit when indicated. Patients with private insurance and highest income experienced improved survival suggesting disparity in care.
利用大型国家队列比较肉瘤样肾细胞癌(sRCC)中根治性肾切除术(RN)和部分肾切除术(PN)的结果。由于 RN 是具有临床侵袭性特征的局限性 RCC 的参考标准,因此 sRCC 中的 PN 研究较少。
我们对 2004 年至 2019 年国家癌症数据库中接受 sRCC(T1-T3N0-N1M0)的 PN 和 RN 治疗的患者进行了回顾性队列分析。我们进行了多变量分析(MVA)以确定与 PN 和全因死亡率(ACM)相关的因素,并根据临床分期对 Charlson 0 患者进行了 Kaplan-Meier 分析(KMA)以确定接受 PN 与 RN 的总生存率(OS)。
该队列包括 5265 名患者[RN 4582 名(87.0%)/PN 683 名(13.0%)]。接受 PN 的可能性增加与乳头状 RCC 相关(OR=1.69,p=0.015);与年龄增加(OR=0.99,p=0.004)、cT2-cT3(OR=0.23,p<0.001)和 cN1(OR=0.2,p<0.001)呈负相关。较差的 ACM 与切缘阳性(HR=1.59,p<0.001)、男性(HR=1.1,p=0.044)、Charlson [公式:见文本]2(HR=1.47,p<0.001)、cT2-cT3(HR 1.17-1.39,p<0.001-0.035)和 cN1(HR=1.59,p<0.001)相关。PN 可改善 ACM(HR=0.64,p<0.001)、增加家庭收入(HR=0.77-0.79,p<0.001)和私人保险(HR=0.80,p=0.018)。KMA 显示,与 RN 相比,cT1(86.5% vs. 63.2%,p<0.001)和 cT3(61.0% vs. 44.0%,p<0.001)中,PN 可改善 5 年 OS,但 cT2 无差异(p=0.67)。
在选择的患者中,带阴性切缘的 PN 可能不会影响结局,并在有指征时可能会带来益处。有私人保险和最高收入的患者生存情况改善,这表明存在治疗差异。