Suppr超能文献

对于cT1期肾肿块患者,经过一段时间的主动监测后,保留肾单位干预措施的应用似乎并未受到影响。

The use of nephron-sparing intervention does not appear to be compromised after a period of active surveillance for patients with cT1 renal masses.

作者信息

Wang Michael, Wilke Aaron, Goorman Samuel, McElroy Andrew, Vercnocke Jack, Moser Ana Maria, Van Til Monica, Semerjian Alice, Mirza Mahin, Maatman Thomas, Kozminski Michael, Rogers Craig G, Lane Brian R, Ginsburg Kevin

机构信息

Wayne State University, Department of Urology, Detroit, MI.

Wayne State University, Department of Urology, Detroit, MI.

出版信息

Urol Oncol. 2025 Apr;43(4):268.e35-268.e42. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.034. Epub 2024 Nov 16.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

It remains unknown whether the use of nephron sparing intervention (NSI) is impacted with delayed intervention after a period of active surveillance (AS) compared with immediate intervention for patients with clinically localized renal masses ≤7cm (cT1RMs). We hypothesized that the proportion of patients undergoing NSI is similar among patients undergoing immediate and delayed intervention for cT1RMs.

METHODS

We retrospective reviewed the prospectively maintained Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for patients undergoing intervention for cT1RMs from 05/2017 to 09/2023. The primary outcome was type of treatment received: radical nephrectomy (RN) or NSI (partial nephrectomy, ablation, or stereotactic body radiation therapy). The main independent variable was timing of treatment: immediate (treatment within 90 days) vs. delayed intervention (>90 days). We fit a mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression model to assess for the adjusted association of immediate vs delayed intervention with the receipt of NSI and estimate an adjusted probability of NSI.

RESULTS

We identified 2,156 patients, of whom 93% underwent immediate intervention and 7% underwent a period of AS prior to delayed intervention. Median time from initial visit to intervention was 1.4 (IQR 0.9-2.0) and 13 (IQR 7.7-21) months in the immediate vs delayed intervention groups, respectively. In the multivariable model, we did not appreciate a significant association between delayed intervention with receipt of NSI (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57-1.70, P >0.9). The adjusted proportion of NSI was 75% and 78% for patients in the immediate and delayed intervention cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing delayed intervention after AS had similar use of NSI compared with those undergoing immediate intervention. Active surveillance for patients with cT1RMs does not appear to compromise the ability to perform nephron sparing interventions.

摘要

引言与目的

对于临床局限性肾肿块≤7cm(cT1RMs)的患者,与立即干预相比,在一段主动监测(AS)期后进行延迟干预是否会影响保留肾单位干预(NSI)的使用尚不清楚。我们假设,对于cT1RMs患者,接受立即干预和延迟干预的患者中接受NSI的比例相似。

方法

我们回顾性分析了2017年5月至2023年9月期间接受cT1RMs干预的患者的前瞻性维护的密歇根泌尿外科手术改进协作组(MUSIC)登记数据。主要结局是接受的治疗类型:根治性肾切除术(RN)或NSI(部分肾切除术、消融或立体定向体部放射治疗)。主要自变量是治疗时间:立即(90天内治疗)与延迟干预(>90天)。我们拟合了一个混合效应多变量逻辑回归模型,以评估立即干预与延迟干预与接受NSI之间的调整后关联,并估计NSI的调整后概率。

结果

我们确定了2156例患者,其中93%接受了立即干预,7%在延迟干预前经历了一段AS期。立即干预组和延迟干预组从初次就诊到干预的中位时间分别为1.4(四分位间距0.9 - 所给英文文本中此处有误,应为1.4 (IQR 0.9 - 2.0))和13(四分位间距7.7 - 21)个月。在多变量模型中,我们未发现延迟干预与接受NSI之间存在显著关联(比值比0.99,95%置信区间0.57 - 1.70,P>0.9)。立即干预队列和延迟干预队列中患者接受NSI的调整比例分别为75%和78%。

结论

与立即干预的患者相比,AS后接受延迟干预的患者使用NSI的情况相似。对cT1RMs患者进行主动监测似乎不会损害进行保留肾单位干预的能力。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验