RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To compare perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes between transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN). METHODS: A literature searching of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed in August, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% conï¬dence intervals (CIs) were estimated using ï¬xed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plots. Only comparative studies with matched design or similar baseline characteristics were included. RESULTS: Eleven studies embracing 2,984 patients were included. There was no signiï¬cant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to open (P = 0.44) or radical (P = 0.31) surgery, all complications (P = 0.06), major complications (P = 0.07), warm ischemia time (P = 0.73), positive surgical margin (P = 0.87), decline in eGFR (P = 0.42), CKD upstaging (P = 0.72), and total recurrence (P = 0.66). Patients undergoing TRPN had a significant higher minor complications (P = 0.04; OR: 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.91), longer operative time (P < 0.001; WMD: 21.68; 95% CI, 11.61 to 31.76), more estimated blood loss (EBL, P = 0.002; WMD: 40.94; 95% CI, 14.87 to 67.01), longer length of hospital stay (LOS, P < 0.001; WMD: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.37). No obvious publication bias was identified. CONCLUSION: RRPN is more favorable than TRPN in terms of less minor complications, shorter operative time, less EBL, and shorter LOS. Methodological limitations of the included studies should be considered while interpreting these results.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To date, the prognostic value of sarcomatoid differentiation in patients having metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains inconclusive. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant literatures were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library published prior to May, 2020. All patients were diagnosed with mRCC and treated with surgery, cytokine therapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Sarcomatoid differentiation in the pathological specimens was identified. Each endpoint [overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS)] was assessed using a multivariable adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies having 5,828 patients with mRCC were included. The merged results showed that patients presenting sarcomatoid differentiation had a significantly inferior OS (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.82-2.81; P < 0.001), PFS (HR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.63-3.19; P < 0.001), and CSS (HR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.51-3.40; P < 0.001) compared to those without sarcomatoid differentiation. Subgroup analysis based on publication year, patient population, country, number of cases, and NOS score did not change the direction of results. A significant publication bias was identified for OS, but no publication bias was identified for PFS. Moreover, sensitivity analysis also verified the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that sarcomatoid differentiation was correlated to unfavorable clinical outcomes in mRCC and may be a poor prognostic factor incorporating to prognostic models for mRCC patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To date, there remain uncertainties over the prognostic role of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases up to October 2019. The endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate each endpoint. RESULTS: Thirty observational studies of low to moderate risk of bias embracing 6754 patients with mRCC were included. The results showed that patients with a high pretreatment serum LDH had an inferior OS (HR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.85-2.51; P < 0.001) and PFS (HR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.49-2.10; P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses according to year of publication, study design, patient population, geographic region, sample size and NOS score did not alter the direction of results. There was significant publication bias for OS, but not for PFS. Sensitivity analyses further confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that a high level of pretreatment serum LDH was associated with an inferior OS and DFS in patients with mRCC. Methodological limitations should be considered while interpreting these results.