Partial versus radical nephrectomy in very elderly patients: a propensity score analysis of surgical, functional and oncologic outcomes (RESURGE project).

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of PN to those of RN in very elderly patients treated for clinically localized renal tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A purpose-built multi-institutional international database (RESURGE project) was used for this retrospective analysis. Patients over 75 years old and surgically treated for a suspicious of localized renal with either PN or RN were included in this database. Surgical, renal function and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity scores for the predicted probability to receive PN in each patient were estimated by logistic regression models. Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to determine the relative change in hazard associated with PN vs RN on overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM). RESULTS: A total of 613 patients who underwent RN were successfully matched with 613 controls who underwent PN. Higher overall complication rate was recorded in the PN group (33% vs 25%; p = 0.01). Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 35 months (interquartile range [IQR] 13-63 months). There was a significant difference between RN and PN in median decline of eGFR (39% vs 17%; p < 0.01). PN was not correlated with OM (HR = 0.71; p = 0.56), OCM (HR = 0.74; p = 0.5), and showed a protective trend for CSM (HR = 0.19; p = 0.05). PN was found to be a protective factor for surgical CKD (HR = 0.28; p < 0.01) and worsening of eGFR in patients with baseline CKD. Retrospective design represents a limitation of this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of PN in very elderly patients with localized renal tumor does not compromise oncological outcomes, and it allows better functional preservation at mid-term (3-year) follow-up, relative to RN. Whether this functional benefit translates into a survival benefit remains to be determined.

Transurethral resection and other minimally invasive treatment options for BPH: would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Results from EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) decision-making survey among urologists.

Introduction: With the introduction of novel treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), decision making regarding surgical management has become ever more complex. Factors such as clinical exposure, equipment availability, patient characteristics and hospital setting may affect what treatment is offered and an informed patient choice. The aim of this study was to investigate how urologists help patients make decisions regarding BPH management and whether their practice would differ if they were the patient themselves. Material and methods: A 52-question survey presenting hypothetical clinical scenarios was distributed to European urologists and trainees/residents online and in person. In each scenario, regarding treatment options for BPH, the participant considered themselves firstly as the treating clinician and secondly as the patient themselves. Details regarding the participants' clinical experience, awareness of treatment options and exposure to these options were obtained. Results: There were 139 participants; 69.8% of whom were consultants, with 82.1% of participants having practiced urology for more than 5 years. A total of 59.7% of urologists consider themselves BPH specialists. Furthermore, 93.5% of those surveyed had performed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), whilst procedures performed the least by participants were minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) options. Only 17.3% had seen and 1.4% had performed all of the treatment options. When considering themselves as a patient within standard practice, there was a preference for HoLEP amongst participants. Conclusions: The majority of urologists surveyed had minimal experience to newer BPH techniques and MIST, suggesting that more exposure is required. A higher rate of HoLEP was chosen as a treatment option for urologists themselves as a patient than what they would choose as an option for their patients.

Operative safety and oncologic outcome of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma >7 cm: a multicenter study of 222 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) >7 cm, addressing the issue of modality and risk factors for complications and open conversion, and to assess the oncologic outcome. METHODS: The data of 222 patients undergoing LRN for RCC >7 cm prospectively enrolled from 2002 to 2010 at 5 urologic centers were reviewed. Transperitoneal LRN was performed by 5 experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The Clavien-Dindo classification was used to assess complications. Multivariable analysis of factors predictive of conversions was performed. Oncologic outcomes for survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median tumor size was 8.5 cm, operative time was 180 minutes, and blood loss was 280 mL. Forty-two patients (19%) received a blood transfusion. Six (2.7%) patients had grade III-IV complications: 2 with postoperative bleeding requiring abdominal re-exploration and 1 each with adrenal injury, splenic injury, wound diastasis, and respiratory insufficiency. Twelve patients (5.4%) were converted to open surgery. The diameter was 11.9 in converted groups and 8.5 cm in nonconverted groups (P = .001). Multivariable analysis revealed that pathologic stage was the only independent predictor of conversion (P = .002). The 5-year overall (OS), cancer-specific (CSS), and progression-free (PFS) survival was 74%, 78%, and 66%, respectively. The 5-year stage-adjusted CSS was 89% in pT2 and 40% in pT3 patients (P <.0001). Limitations of this study were its retrospective nature and the relatively short follow-up period for oncologic outcome. CONCLUSION: LRN for large RCC is a safe operation. Stage pT3 is a risk factor for open conversion and is associated to significantly lower cancer-specific survival compared with pT2 stage.