Nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma up to 7 cm

Abstract

To compare the oncological outcome of nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma up to 7 cm by retrospectively reviewing our surgical experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data collected from 1290 consecutive patients, who underwent surgery for renal carcinoma, have been stored since 1983 into a dedicated database. The cases with unilateral carcinoma up to 7 cm, pT1a/pT1b/pT3a N0/Nx M0, followed up for a minimum of 12 months if disease-free were reviewed. RESULTS. 732 patients were selected (mean follow-up: 72 months); 329 had a tumor less than 4 cm in diameter (182 cases of nephron-sparing surgery, 147 cases of nephrectomy), while for 403 of them the tumor was 4 cm or more (57 cases of nephron-sparing surgery, 346 cases of nephrectomy). The comparison between tumors less and equal to/more than 4 cm showed worse progression and disease-free survival rates for the latter, even though the type of surgery (nephron-sparing or radical) had no significant impact. Patients with extracapsular carcinoma ≥4 cm, treated with nephron-sparing surgery, had a particularly poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS. The conservative management can be cautiously suggested for renal cancers up to 7cm, since the prognosis worsens proportionally with the diameter increase, with no statistical difference for both nephron-sparing and radical surgery. Nephron-sparing surgery proved to be the suitable treatment modality also for pT3a tumors measuring <4 cm, whereas when the tumor size increases, an adequate intraoperative evaluation of peritumoral tissues is essential to rule out fat infiltration. These results comply with the few similar studies available in literature, and suggest the possibility of designing a prospective study aiming at comparing conservative and radical surgery in the management of renal carcinoma up to 7 cm.