The Journal of Urology
Volume 179, Issue 2 , Pages 468-473, February 2008

Radical Nephrectomy for pT1a Renal Masses May be Associated With Decreased Overall Survival Compared With Partial Nephrectomy

  • R. Houston Thompson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. Southwest, Rochester, Minnesota 55905 (telephone: 507-284-9983; FAX: 507-284-4951).
  • ,
  • Stephen A. Boorjian

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Christine M. Lohse

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Bradley C. Leibovich

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Eugene D. Kwon

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • John C. Cheville

      Affiliations

    • Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Michael L. Blute

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Received 31 May 2007 published online 12 December 2007.

Purpose

We reviewed our surgical experience with small renal tumors, comparing overall survival in patients treated with radical and partial nephrectomy.

Materials and Methods

Using our nephrectomy registry we identified patients with sporadic, unilateral, solitary and localized renal masses 4 cm or less who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy between 1989 and 2003. Patients with a solitary kidney or impaired renal function at presentation were excluded, leaving 648 available for analysis. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and associations with death were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

At last followup 146 patients had died of any cause and 502 were alive at a median of 7.1 years. Radical and partial nephrectomy was performed in 290 and 358 patients, respectively. In all patients radical nephrectomy was not significantly associated with death from any cause compared with partial nephrectomy (RR 1.12, p = 0.52). However, there was a significant interaction with age, leading us to stratify our analysis at the median age of 65 years. In 327 patients younger than 65 years radical nephrectomy was significantly associated with death from any cause compared with partial nephrectomy (RR 2.16, p = 0.02). The increased risk of death persisted after adjusting for year of surgery (p = 0.02), preoperative creatinine (p = 0.03), Charlson-Romano index (p = 0.04), symptoms at presentation (p = 0.02), diabetes at presentation (p = 0.03) and histology (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that, compared with partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy is associated with decreased overall survival in younger patients with small renal masses.

Key Words: kidney, kidney neoplasms, nephrectomy, carcinoma, renal cell, mortality

Abbreviations and Acronyms: CrCl, creatinine clearance, ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, GFR, glomerular filtration rate, MVA, multivariate analysis, PN, partial nephrectomy, RN, radical nephrectomy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Study received institutional review board approval.

PII: S0022-5347(07)02579-7

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.077

Refers to erratum:

The Journal of Urology
Volume 179, Issue 2 , Pages 468-473, February 2008