首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Urological Association Journal >Comparative effectiveness of adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy and non-adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Observational study of survival outcomes
【24h】

Comparative effectiveness of adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy and non-adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Observational study of survival outcomes

机译:肾上腺保留根治性肾切除术和非肾上腺保留根治性肾切除术在透明细胞肾细胞癌中的比较有效性:生存结果的观察性研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Introduction: We compare the survival outcomes of patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy (ASRN) and non-adrenal sparing radical nephrectomy (NASRN). Methods: We conducted an observational study based on a composite patient population from two university teaching hospitals who underwent RN for RCC between January 2000 and December 2012. Only patients with pathologically confirmed RCC were included. We excluded patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy, with loco-regional lymph node involvement. In total, 579 patients (ASRN = 380 and NASRN = 199) met our study criteria. Patients were categorized by risk groups (all stage, early stage and locally advanced RCC). Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were analyzed for risk groups. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: The median follow-up was 41 months (range: 12–157). There were significant benefits in OS (ASRN 79.5% vs. NASRN 63.3%; p = 0.001) and CSS (84.3% vs. 74.9%; p = 0.001), with any differences favouring ASRN in all stage. On multivariate analysis, there was a trend towards worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.759, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.943–2.309, p = 0.089) and CSS (HR 1.797, 95% CI 0.967–3.337, p = 0.064) in patients with NASRN (although not statistically significant). Of these patients, only 11 (1.9%) had adrenal involvement. Conclusions: The inherent limitations in our study include the impracticality of conducting a prospective randomized trial in this scenario. Our observational study with a 13-year follow-up suggests ASRN leads to better survival than NASRN. ASRN should be considered the gold standard in treating patients with RCC, unless it is contraindicated.
机译:简介:我们比较了肾上腺保留根治性肾切除术(ASRN)和非肾上腺保留根治性肾切除术(NASRN)治疗的透明细胞肾细胞癌(RCC)患者的生存结局。方法:我们根据2000年1月至2012年12月间接受RCC RN的两家大学教学医院的综合患者人群进行了观察性研究。仅包括经病理证实的RCC患者。我们排除了局部减低淋巴结受累的接受细胞减灭性肾切除术的患者。总共有579名患者(ASRN = 380,NASRN = 199)符合我们的研究标准。按照危险组(所有阶段,早期和局部晚期RCC)对患者进行分类。分析高危人群的总生存期(OS)和癌症特异性生存期(CSS)。使用Kaplan-Meier曲线和Cox比例风险回归进行生存分析。结果:中位随访时间为41个月(范围:12–157)。 OS有显着优势(ASRN为79.5%,NASRN为63.3%; p = 0.001)和CSS(84.3%vs. 74.9%; p = 0.001),所有阶段的差异均有利于ASRN。在多变量分析中,存在OS恶化的趋势(危险比[HR] 1.759,95%置信区间[CI] 0.943–2.309,p = 0.089)和CSS(HR 1.797,95%CI 0.967–3.337,p = 0.064) )的患者(尽管无统计学意义)。在这些患者中,只有11名(1.9%)有肾上腺受累。结论:我们研究的固有局限性在于在这种情况下进行前瞻性随机试验是不切实际的。我们为期13年的随访观察研究表明,ASRN比NASRN导致更好的生存。除非有禁忌症,否则应将ASRN视为治疗RCC患者的黄金标准。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号