Variation in surgical margin status by surgical approach among patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for small renal masses

Journal of Urology

Volumn 194, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1548-1553

  Tabayoyong, William ^a   Abouassaly, Robert ^a   Kiechle, Jonathan E ^a   Cherullo, Edward E ^a   Meropol, Neal J ^a   Shah, Nilay D ^d   Dong, Shan ^a   Thompson, R Houston ^e   Smaldone, Marc C ^f   Zhu, Hui ^b,c   Ialacci, Sarah ^a   Kim, Simon P ^a,g  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

^b LOUIS STOKES CLEVELAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY   (United States)

^f FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^g YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

carcinoma; kidney; minimally invasive surgical procedures; nephrectomy; outcome and process assessment (health care); renal cell

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER CENTER; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; LAPAROSCOPIC PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPEN PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROBOTIC PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; SURGICAL APPROACH; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; AGED; CANCER STAGING; CARCINOMA, RENAL CELL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; LAPAROSCOPY; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; NEPHRECTOMY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

ADULT; AGED; CARCINOMA, RENAL CELL; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; NEPHRECTOMY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84941602639     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.076     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. R. Siegel, J. Ma, Z. Zou, and et al. Cancer statistics, 2014 CA Cancer J Clin 64 2014 9
2. W.H. Chow, S.S. Devesa, J.L. Warren, and et al. Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States JAMA 281 1999 1628
3. S.C. Campbell, A.C. Novick, A. Belldegrun, and et al. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass J Urol 182 2009 1271
4. S.P. Kim, R.H. Thompson, S.A. Boorjian, and et al. Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Urol 188 2012 51
5. C.J. Weight, B.T. Larson, A.F. Fergany, and et al. Nephrectomy induced chronic renal insufficiency is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death and death from any cause in patients with localized cT1b renal masses J Urol 183 2010 1317
6. M. Marszalek, H. Meixl, M. Polajnar, and et al. Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients Eur Urol 55 2009 1171
7. S.B. Williams, R. Kacker, M. Alemozaffar, and et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a single laparoscopic trained surgeon's experience in the development of a robotic partial nephrectomy program World J Urol 31 2013 793
8. I.S. Gill, L.R. Kavoussi, B.R. Lane, and et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors J Urol 178 2007 41
9. A. Minervini, G. Vittori, A. Antonelli, and et al. Open versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicenter comparison study of perioperative results and complications World J Urol 32 2014 287
10. O.M. Aboumarzouk, R.J. Stein, R. Eyraud, and et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Urol 62 2012 1023
11. E.R. Ray, B.W. Turney, R. Singh, and et al. Open partial nephrectomy: outcomes from two UK centres BJU Int 97 2006 1211
12. A. Breda, S.V. Stepanian, J. Liao, and et al. Positive margins in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 855 cases: a multi-institutional survey from the United States and Europe J Urol 178 2007 47
13. B.M. Benway, S.B. Bhayani, C.G. Rogers, and et al. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes J Urol 182 2009 866
14. D.A. Lifshitz, S.A. Shikanov, T. Deklaj, and et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a single-center evolving experience Urology 75 2010 282
15. R.E. Link, S.B. Bhayani, M.E. Allaf, and et al. Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass J Urol 173 2005 1690
16. S. Permpongkosol, J.R. Colombo Jr., I.S. Gill, and et al. Positive surgical parenchymal margin after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: oncological outcomes J Urol 176 2006 2401
17. F. Porpiglia, R. Bertolo, D. Amparore, and et al. Margins, ischaemia and complications rate after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: impact of learning curve and tumour anatomical characteristics BJU Int 112 2013 1125
18. R. Autorino, A. Khalifeh, H. Laydner, and et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for completely endophytic renal masses: a single institution experience BJU Int 113 2014 762
19. C.G. Rogers, M. Menon, E.S. Weise, and et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis J Robot Surg 2 2008 141
20. A. Khalifeh, J.H. Kaouk, S. Bhayani, and et al. Positive surgical margins in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis of oncologic outcomes (leave no tumor behind) J Urol 190 2013 1674
21. I. Ani, A. Finelli, S.M. Alibhai, and et al. Prevalence and impact on survival of positive surgical margins in partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a population-based study BJU Int 111 2013 E300
22. K.R. Ghani, S. Sukumar, J.D. Sammon, and et al. Practice patterns and outcomes of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy since the introduction of robotic partial nephrectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample J Urol 191 2014 907
23. H.Y. Yu, N.D. Hevelone, S.R. Lipsitz, and et al. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery J Urol 187 2012 1392
24. American College of Surgeons: National Cancer Data Base, 2014. Available at http://www.facs.org/cancer/ncdb/index.html. Accessed June 5, 2015.
25. A. Fritz, C. Percy, and A. Jack International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd ed 2000 World Health Organization Geneva
26. J.E. Thompson, S. Egger, M. Bohm, and et al. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases Eur Urol 65 2014 521
27. L.S. Krane, T.B. Manny, P.W. Mufarrij, and et al. Does experience in creating a robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) programme in an academic centre impact outcomes or complication rate? BJU Int 112 2013 207
28. K. Bensalah, A.J. Pantuck, N. Rioux-Leclercq, and et al. Positive surgical margin appears to have negligible impact on survival of renal cell carcinomas treated by nephron-sparing surgery Eur Urol 57 2010 466
29. E.O. Kwon, B.S. Carver, M.E. Snyder, and et al. Impact of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for renal cortical tumours BJU Int 99 2007 286
30. A. Kutikov, and R.G. Uzzo The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth J Urol 182 2009 844