Management of localized and locally advanced renal tumors. A contemporary review of current treatment options

About 70% of patients with renal cell carcinoma present with localized or locally advanced disease at primary diagnosis. Whereas these patients are potentially curable by surgical treatment alone, a further 20% to 30% of patients are diagnosed with primary metastatic disease. Although over the past years medical treatment for metastatic patients has nearly completely changed from immunotherapy to effective treatment with targeted agents, metastatic disease still represents a disease status which is not curable. Also in patients with metastatic disease, surgical treatment of the primary tumor plays an important role, since local tumor related complications can be avoided or minimized by surgery. Furthermore, also improvement of overall survival has been proven for surgery in metastatic patients when combined with cytokine treatment. Hence, surgical combined with systemic treatment as a multi-modal, adjuvant, and neo-adjuvant treatment is also required in patients with advanced or metastatic disease. A growing number of elderly and comorbid patients are currently diagnosed with small renal masses, which has led to increased attention paid to alternative ablative treatment modalities as well as active surveillance strategies, which are applied in order to avoid unnecessary overtreatment in these patients. Since surgical treatment also might enhance the risk of chronic kidney disease with consecutive cardiac disorders as well as reduced overall survival, ablative techniques and active surveillance are increasingly applied. In this review article we focus on current surgical and none-surgical treatment options for the management of patients with localized, locally advanced, and metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Management of localized and locally advanced renal tumors. A contemporary review of current treatment options

Item does not contain fulltextAbout 70% of patients with renal cell carcinoma present with localized or locally advanced disease at primary diagnosis. Whereas these patients are potentially curable by surgical treatment alone, a further 20% to 30% of patients are diagnosed with primary metastatic disease. Although over the past years medical treatment for metastatic patients has nearly completely changed from immunotherapy to effective treatment with targeted agents, metastatic disease still represents a disease status which is not curable. Also in patients with metastatic disease, surgical treatment of the primary tumor plays an important role, since local tumor related complications can be avoided or minimized by surgery. Furthermore, also improvement of overall survival has been proven for surgery in metastatic patients when combined with cytokine treatment. Hence, surgical combined with systemic treatment as a multi-modal, adjuvant, and neo-adjuvant treatment is also required in patients with advanced or metastatic disease. A growing number of elderly and comorbid patients are currently diagnosed with small renal masses, which has led to increased attention paid to alternative ablative treatment modalities as well as active surveillance strategies, which are applied in order to avoid unnecessary overtreatment in these patients. Since surgical treatment also might enhance the risk of chronic kidney disease with consecutive cardiac disorders as well as reduced overall survival, ablative techniques and active surveillance are increasingly applied. In this review article we focus on current surgical and none-surgical treatment options for the management of patients with localized, locally advanced, and metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with recurrent disease: fiction or fact?

Item does not contain fulltex

What is the contemporary role of radiofrequency ablation in the management of small renal masses? Are small lesions the radiologist's tumors?

Item does not contain fulltex

Impact of surgical approach and resection technique on the risk of Trifecta Failure after partial nephrectomy for highly complex renal masses

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare the outcomes of open vs robotic partial nephrectomy (PN), focusing on predictors of Trifecta failure in patients with highly complex renal masses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We queried the prospectively collected database from the SIB International Consortium, including 507 consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses treated at 16 high-volume referral centres, to select those with highly complex (PADUA score ≥10) tumors undergoing PN. RT was classified as enucleation, enucleoresection or resection according to the SIB score. Trifecta was defined as achievement of negative surgical margins, no acute kidney injury and no Clavien-Dindo grade ≥2 postoperative surgical complications. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent predictors of Trifecta failure. RESULTS: 113 patients were included. Patients undergoing open PN (n = 47, 41.6%) and robotic PN (n = 66, 58.4%) were comparable in baseline characteristics. RT was classified as enucleation, enucleoresection and resection in 46.9%, 34.0% and 19.1% of open PN, and in 50.0%, 40.9% and 9.1% of robotic PN (p = 0.28). Trifecta was achieved in significantly more patients after robotic PN (69.7% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, surgical approach (open vs robotic, OR: 2.62; 95%CI: 1.11-6.15, p = 0.027) and tumor complexity (OR for each additional unit of the PADUA score: 2.27; 95%CI: 1.27-4.06, p = 0.006) were significant predictors of Trifecta failure, while RT was not. The study is limited by lack of randomization; as such, selection bias and confounding cannot be entirely ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor complexity and surgical approach were independent predictors of Trifecta failure after PN for highly complex renal masses

Impact of Trifecta definition on rates and predictors of "successful" robotic partial nephrectomy for localized renal masses: results from the Surface-Intermediate-Base Margin Score International Consortium

BACKGROUND: Over the years, five different Trifecta score definitions have been proposed to optimize the framing of "success" in partial nephrectomy (PN) field. However, such classifications rely on different metrics. The aim of the present study was to explore how the success rate of robotic PN, as well as its drivers, vary according to the currently available definitions of Trifecta. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses treated with robotic PN at 16 referral centers from September 2014 to March 2015 were prospectively collected. Trifecta rate was defined for each of the currently available definitions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate possible predictors of "Trifecta failure" according to the different adopted formulation. RESULTS: Overall, 289 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among the definitions, Trifecta rates ranged between 66.4% and 85.9%. Multivariable analysis showed that predictors for "Trifecta failure" were mainly tumor-related (i.e. tumor's nephrometry) for those Trifecta scores relying on WIT as a surrogate metric for postoperative renal function deterioration (definitions 1,2), while mainly surgery-related (i.e. ischemia time and excision strategy) for those including the percentage change in postoperative eGFR as the functional cornerstone of Trifecta (definitions 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: There was large variability in rates and predictors of "unsuccessful PN" when using different Trifecta scores. Further research is needed to improve the value of the Trifecta metrics, integrating them into routine patient counseling and standardized assessment of surgical quality across institutions