PD07-10 OUTCOMES OF PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY FOR NON-METASTATIC cT2 RENAL TUMORS: RESULTS FROM A CANADIAN MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATIVE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023PD07-10 OUTCOMES OF PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY FOR NON-METASTATIC cT2 RENAL TUMORS: RESULTS FROM A CANADIAN MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATIVE Rahul Bansal, Raees Cassim, Ryan Sun, Ranjeeta Mallick, Antonio Finelli, Simon Tanguay, Darrel Drachenberg, Frederic Pouliot, Luke Lavallee, Alan So, Ricardo Rendon, Lori Wood, Anil Kapoor, Aly-Khan Lalani, Naveen Basappa, Lucas Dean, Bimal Bhindi, Georg Bjarnason, and Rodney Breau Rahul BansalRahul Bansal More articles by this author , Raees CassimRaees Cassim More articles by this author , Ryan SunRyan Sun More articles by this author , Ranjeeta MallickRanjeeta Mallick More articles by this author , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli More articles by this author , Simon TanguaySimon Tanguay More articles by this author , Darrel DrachenbergDarrel Drachenberg More articles by this author , Frederic PouliotFrederic Pouliot More articles by this author , Luke LavalleeLuke Lavallee More articles by this author , Alan SoAlan So More articles by this author , Ricardo RendonRicardo Rendon More articles by this author , Lori WoodLori Wood More articles by this author , Anil KapoorAnil Kapoor More articles by this author , Aly-Khan LalaniAly-Khan Lalani More articles by this author , Naveen BasappaNaveen Basappa More articles by this author , Lucas DeanLucas Dean More articles by this author , Bimal BhindiBimal Bhindi More articles by this author , Georg BjarnasonGeorg Bjarnason More articles by this author , and Rodney BreauRodney Breau More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003231.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The role of partial nephrectomy (PN) is not well defined for cT2 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) as compared to radical nephrectomy (RN). The aim of this study was to examine oncological outcomes of PN as compared to RN for non-metastatic cT2 RCC. METHODS: The Canadian Kidney Cancer information system was used to define patients who underwent surgery for non-metastatic cT2 RCC from January 2011 to October 2022. Patients with clear-cell, papillary, and chromophobe RCC were included. Other histology, multiple tumours, and hereditary RCC syndrome patients were excluded. Each PN patient was individually matched to RN up to 1:4 depending on availability of patients based on tumor size (+/-1cm), histology, grade (clear cell and papillary), and necrosis (clear cell). Matched patients were analyzed as clusters. RESULTS: A total of 1523 patients were identified, and 50 PN patients met study criteria who were then matched to 185 RN patients. Both groups had similar age, gender, smoking status, BMI, Charlson comorbidity index score, symptoms at presentation, baseline eGFR, hemoglobin and pathological characteristics. PN patients had smaller tumors (7.6 cm [IQR 23] vs 8.4 [IQR 2.4], p=0.0479), had higher likelihood of undergoing open surgery (72.9% vs 31.8%, p<0.0001) and less likely received adrenalectomy (2% vs 24.3%, p=0.0004). Positive surgical margin rates were similar in both groups (8.2% in PN vs 3.4% in RN, p=0.2296). Median follow up was not significantly different in either group (3.6 yrs [IQR 4.7] in PN vs 3.3 [4.7] yrs in RN, p=0.975). During the follow up period, PN patients had higher risk of local recurrence (HR 3.0, 95%CI 1.08-8.37) and lower risk of metastasis (HR 0.36, 95%CI 0.15-0.88), overall survival (HR 0.36, 95%CI 0.18-1.78) as compared to RN. Cancer specific recurrence was similar between both groups (HR 0.56 ,95%CI 0.18,1.78). PN patients preserved more GFR than RN patients (-14.4 [SD 17.9] vs -23.7[SD 15], p=0.0006). Complications rates were similar between PN and RN (18% vs 8.65%, p=0.0571). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional Canadian cohort of patients with non-metastatic cT2 RCC undergoing surgery, PN compared to RN was associated with higher local recurrence, lower risk of distant metastasis, and death from any cause with similar complications and better preservation of renal function. Despite individual patient matching, there is likely unadjusted selection bias resulting in superior cancer survival associated with PN. Source of Funding: N/A © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e166 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Rahul Bansal More articles by this author Raees Cassim More articles by this author Ryan Sun More articles by this author Ranjeeta Mallick More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Simon Tanguay More articles by this author Darrel Drachenberg More articles by this author Frederic Pouliot More articles by this author Luke Lavallee More articles by this author Alan So More articles by this author Ricardo Rendon More articles by this author Lori Wood More articles by this author Anil Kapoor More articles by this author Aly-Khan Lalani More articles by this author Naveen Basappa More articles by this author Lucas Dean More articles by this author Bimal Bhindi More articles by this author Georg Bjarnason More articles by this author Rodney Breau More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».