How often are patients with diabetes or hypertension being treated with partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma? A population-based analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Study Type – Therapy (cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? We know that a major benefit of partial nephrectomy (PN) over radical nephrectomy (RN) is greater preservation of kidney function. Emerging evidence also suggests that chronic kidney disease (CKD) correlates with survival, likely as a result of increased cardiovascular morbidity. We also know that Diabetes Mellitus (DM) followed by Hypertension (HTN) are the two most frequent causes of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Given the strong association between renal functional decline and the surgical treatment of small renal masses, one would expect utilization of PN in patients with HTN or DM to be high, however minimal data exist on PN use in these populations. We are thus unable to determine whether these patients are being managed optimally. Our large study demonstrates that PN is being underutilized in patients at risk for CKD, particularly patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. Unlike previously published reports, our population-level study provides a description of the landscape of care for patients with renal masses in general practice, and does not simply reflect treatment patterns at tertiary referral centers. The finding of low PN use in patients at risk for CKD deserves further study. Future studies should focus on determining the specific factors contributing to PN underutilization in these susceptible patients, as well as developing clinical tools to reliably identify those patients in whom the benefits of PN outweigh the risks. OBJECTIVE • To determine partial nephrectomy (PN) use in patients at risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD), such as those with diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HTN). PATIENTS AND METHODS • We conducted a national, population-based, retrospective, observational study using the Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database. • We included all patients treated surgically for renal cell carcinoma from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2008. • Patients with DM and HTN were identified using specific diagnosis codes. • The proportions of patients treated with PN were compared in patients with and without DM and HTN using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for covariates. RESULTS • A total of 24 579 patients were treated for a renal mass; of these, 4292 (17.5%) underwent PN. • In our sample, 5613 (22.8%) patients were identified as having HTN, and 2738 (11.1%) were identified as having DM. • PN was used in 17.3% of patients with HTN compared to 17.5% of those without HTN, whereas, in patients with DM, PN was used in 18.6% compared to 17.3% of patients without DM. • After adjusting for covariates, neither HTN, nor DM were found to be independently associated with increased PN use (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98–1.16 and odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96–1.20, respectively). CONCLUSIONS • In this contemporary national analysis, PN appears to be underutilized in DM and HTN, despite their known relationship with chronic renal failure. • Further studies are needed to elucidate the specific factors contributing to PN underutilization in these susceptible patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».