PURPOSE: We used a large, population based registry to assess whether a difference in overall and cardiovascular survival may exist between radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma 2 cm or less. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) registry we identified 4,216 patients with histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma 2 cm or less who were treated with partial or radical nephrectomy. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared between the 2 patient groups. Multivariate logistic regression was done to predict the odds of undergoing radical nephrectomy. Cardiovascular survival and overall survival were compared between the 2 cohorts, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Overall 2,301 patients (55%) underwent partial nephrectomy. Partial nephrectomy use steadily increased during the study period from 27% of all cases in 1998 to 66% in 2007. Patients who underwent partial nephrectomy were an average of 2.5 years younger than those treated with radical nephrectomy (56.4 vs 58.9 years, p <0.001). They were more likely to be white and from the western or northeastern United States. Older age was the only independent predictor of radical nephrectomy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03). When controlling for patient characteristics and surgery year, radical nephrectomy was associated with worse overall mortality (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.75-2.84) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.51-4.23). CONCLUSIONS: Radical nephrectomy is associated with worse overall and cardiovascular survival compared to partial nephrectomy in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma 2 cm or less. These findings justify the widespread application of nephron sparing techniques to treat localized kidney cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kates et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: