Outcomes and predictors of clinical T1 to pathological T3a tumor up-staging after robotic partial nephrectomy: A multi-institutional analysis

Journal of Urology

Volumn 190, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1907-1911

  Gorin, Michael A ^a   Ball, Mark W ^a   Pierorazio, Phillip M ^a   Tanagho, Youssef S ^b   Bhayani, Sam B ^b   Kaouk, Jihad H ^c   Rogers, Craig G ^d   Stifelman, Michael D ^e   Khalifeh, Ali ^c   Kumar, Ramesh ^d   Sivarajan, Ganesh ^e   Allaf, Mohamad E ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d HENRY FORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Carcinoma, renal cell; Kidney; Neoplasm staging; Nephrectomy; Robotics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; ROBOTICS;

EID: 84888638967     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.014     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Yang G, Villalta JD, Meng MV et al: Evolving practice patterns for the management of small renal masses in the USA. BJU Int 2012; 110: 1156.
2. Lane BR, Golan S, Eggener S et al: Differential use of partial nephrectomy for intermediate and high complexity tumors may explain variability in reported utilization rates. J Urol 2013; 189: 2047.
3. Weight CJ, Lythgoe C, Unnikrishnan R et al: Partial nephrectomy does not compromise survival in patients with pathologic upstaging to pT2/pT3 or high-grade renal tumors compared with radical nephrectomy. Urology 2011; 77: 1142.
4. Jeldres C, Patard JJ, Capitanio U et al: Partial versus radical nephrectomy in patients with adverse clinical or pathologic characteristics. Urology 2009; 73: 1300.
5. Breau RH, Crispen PL, Jimenez RE et al: Outcome of stage T2 or greater renal cell cancer treated with partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2010; 183: 903.
6. Hansen J, Sun M, Bianchi M et al: Assessment of cancer control outcomes in patients with highrisk renal cell carcinoma treated with partial nephrectomy. Urology 2012; 80: 347.
7. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer 2009.
8. Aron M, Nguyen MM, Stein RJ et al: Impact of gender in renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of the SEER database. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 133.
9. Renehan AG, Tyson M, Egger M et al: Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet 2008; 371: 569.
10. Thompson RH, Kurta JM, KaagMet al: Tumor size is associated with malignant potential in renal cell carcinoma cases. J Urol 2009; 181: 2033.
11. Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL et al: Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL Nephrometry score. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 241.
12. Mullins JK, Kaouk JH, Bhayani S et al: Tumor complexity predicts malignant disease for small renal masses. J Urol 2012; 188: 2072.
13. Satasivam P, Sengupta S, Rajarubendra N et al: Renal lesions with low R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score are associated with more indolent renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) or benign histology: findings in an Australian cohort. BJU Int, suppl., 2012; 109: 44.
14. Wang HK, Zhu Y, Yao XD et al: External validation of a nomogram using RENAL nephrometry score to predict high grade renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2012; 187: 1555.
15. Kutikov A and Uzzo RG: The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 2009; 182: 844.
16. Moch H, Artibani W, Delahunt B et al: Reassessing the current UICC/AJCC TNM staging for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 636.
17. Novara G, Ficarra V, Antonelli A et al: Validation of the 2009 TNM version in a large multiinstitutional cohort of patients treated for renal cell carcinoma: are further improvements needed? Eur Urol 2010; 58: 588.
18. Kim SP, Alt AL, Weight CJ et al: Independent validation of the 2010 American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: results from a large, single institution cohort. J Urol 2011; 185: 2035.
19. Veeratterapillay R, Simren R, El-Sherif A et al: Accuracy of the revised 2010 TNM classification in predicting the prognosis of patients treated for renal cell cancer in the north east of England. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65: 367.
20. Roberts WW, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME et al: Pathological stage does not alter the prognosis for renal lesions determined to be stage T1 by computerized tomography. J Urol 2005; 173: 713.
21. Volpe A, Cadeddu JA, Cestari A et al: Contemporary management of small renal masses. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 501.
22. Sun M, Trinh QD, Bianchi M et al: A non-cancerrelated survival benefit is associated with partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 725.
23. Liu Y, Song T, Huang Z et al: The accuracy of multidetector Computed Tomography for preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma. Int Braz J Urol 2012; 38: 627.