Introduction: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in solitary kidney (SK) represents a challenging scenario. We sought to compare outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) versus percutaneous thermal ablation (PTA) in SK patients with renal tumors cT1. Materials and methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of SK patients treated for RCC. The PTA group included cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation. We collected baseline characteristics, intraoperative, pathological, and post-operative data. We applied an arbitrary composite “trifecta” to assess surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes, only for malignant histology. RFS analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of “trifecta” achievement. Results: We included 198 SK patients (RAPN, n ¼ 50; PTA n ¼ 119). Mean clinical tumor size was not significantly different while R.E.N.A.L. score was higher for RAPN (p < 0.001). No differences in intra and major post-procedural complications. Recurrence rate was higher in PTA group but not statistically significant (p < 0.328). No difference in metastasis rate was found (p ¼ 0.435). RFS was 96.1% in RAPN and 86.8% in PTA cohort (p ¼ 0.003) while no difference in PFS was detected (p ¼ 0.1). Trifecta was achieved in 72.5% of RAPN vs 77.3% of PTA (p ¼ 0.481). Multivariable analysis has not detected predictors for Trifecta achievement. Conclusion: PTA offers good outcomes in the management of SK patients with RCC. Compared with RAPN, it might carry a higher risk of recurrence; on the other hand, re-treatment is possible. Overall, PTA can be safely offered to treat SK patients presenting RCC. In general, it should be preferred in more frail patients to minimize the risk of complications.

Percutaneous thermal ablation for cT1 renal mass in solitary kidney: A multicenter trifecta comparative analysis versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy

PANDOLFO S;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Introduction: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in solitary kidney (SK) represents a challenging scenario. We sought to compare outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) versus percutaneous thermal ablation (PTA) in SK patients with renal tumors cT1. Materials and methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of SK patients treated for RCC. The PTA group included cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation. We collected baseline characteristics, intraoperative, pathological, and post-operative data. We applied an arbitrary composite “trifecta” to assess surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes, only for malignant histology. RFS analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of “trifecta” achievement. Results: We included 198 SK patients (RAPN, n ¼ 50; PTA n ¼ 119). Mean clinical tumor size was not significantly different while R.E.N.A.L. score was higher for RAPN (p < 0.001). No differences in intra and major post-procedural complications. Recurrence rate was higher in PTA group but not statistically significant (p < 0.328). No difference in metastasis rate was found (p ¼ 0.435). RFS was 96.1% in RAPN and 86.8% in PTA cohort (p ¼ 0.003) while no difference in PFS was detected (p ¼ 0.1). Trifecta was achieved in 72.5% of RAPN vs 77.3% of PTA (p ¼ 0.481). Multivariable analysis has not detected predictors for Trifecta achievement. Conclusion: PTA offers good outcomes in the management of SK patients with RCC. Compared with RAPN, it might carry a higher risk of recurrence; on the other hand, re-treatment is possible. Overall, PTA can be safely offered to treat SK patients presenting RCC. In general, it should be preferred in more frail patients to minimize the risk of complications.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11697/221861
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact