Abstract
The editors' comments further solidify the current rationale for performing partial nephrectomy (PN) in all cases that are technically amenable, regardless of tumor size. A growing body of literature in a collectively large number of patients proves beyond doubt that cancer control is equivalent when PN is compared with radical nephrectomy (RN). In our patient population, even patients who are ultimately pathologically upstaged to T3 disease fare just as well with PN as with RN (unpublished data). Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 76Issue 3PreviewThe authors present 510 patients with renal tumors 4-7 cm, a preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of >60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and a normal contralateral kidney, who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) (n = 212) or radical nephrectomy (RN) (n = 298). Despite the limitations intrinsic to this type of nonrandomized study, including a significantly younger age for PN patients (58 versus 63 years), fewer laparoscopic procedures in the PN patients (22% versus 82%), more low-grade tumors for the PN patients (67% versus 48% grade 1 or 2), and more benign lesions for the PN (20% versus 10%), the authors report similar cancer-specific survival between the 2 operations but worse overall survival for the RN patients. Full-Text PDF
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
