The impact of lymph node dissection and positive lymph nodes on cancer-specific mortality in contemporary pTnon-metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy
Standard
The impact of lymph node dissection and positive lymph nodes on cancer-specific mortality in contemporary pTnon-metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy. / Marchioni, Michele; Bandini, Marco; Pompe, Raisa; Martel, Tristan; Tian, Zhe; Shariat, Shahrokh F; Kapoor, Anil; Cindolo, Luca; Briganti, Alberto; Schips, Luigi; Capitanio, Umberto; Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
in: BJU INT, Jahrgang 121, Nr. 3, 03.2018, S. 383-392.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - The impact of lymph node dissection and positive lymph nodes on cancer-specific mortality in contemporary pTnon-metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy
AU - Marchioni, Michele
AU - Bandini, Marco
AU - Pompe, Raisa
AU - Martel, Tristan
AU - Tian, Zhe
AU - Shariat, Shahrokh F
AU - Kapoor, Anil
AU - Cindolo, Luca
AU - Briganti, Alberto
AU - Schips, Luigi
AU - Capitanio, Umberto
AU - Karakiewicz, Pierre I
N1 - © 2017 The Authors BJU International © 2017 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of lymph node dissection (LND), number of removed nodes (NRN), and number of positive nodes (NPN), on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in contemporary vs historical patients with pT2-3NanyM0renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with radical nephrectomy (RN).PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2001-2013), we identified patients with non-metastatic pT2-3NanyRCC who underwent RN with or without LND. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariable Cox regression models with propensity score weighting for inverse probability of treatment were used.RESULTS: Of 25 357 patients, 24.8% underwent LND (2001-2007: 3 167 patients vs 2008-2013: 3 133 patients). The median NRN was 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-7). Positive nodes were identified in 17.1%: 9.3% of pT2and 21.6% of pT3patients, who underwent LND. The median NPN was 2 (IQR: 1-3). In multivariable models, LND did not decrease CSM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29; P < 0.001). LND extent, defined as NRN, did not decrease CSM (HR 0.94; P = 0.3). Finally, multivariable models testing the effect of NPN showed increased CSM in pT3but not in pT2patients (HR 1.29 and 1.58, P = 0.02 and P = 0.1, respectively). NRN exerted a protective effect on CSM in patients with positive nodes (HR 0.98; P = 0.007).CONCLUSION: In contemporary and historical patients LND or its extent do not protect from CSM. However, the NPN increases the rate of CSM in pT3patients. Consequently, LND and its extent appear to have little if any therapeutic value in pT2-3NanyM0patients, besides its prognostic impact. High-risk non-metastatic patients may represent a target population for a multi-institutional prospective trial.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of lymph node dissection (LND), number of removed nodes (NRN), and number of positive nodes (NPN), on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in contemporary vs historical patients with pT2-3NanyM0renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with radical nephrectomy (RN).PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2001-2013), we identified patients with non-metastatic pT2-3NanyRCC who underwent RN with or without LND. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariable Cox regression models with propensity score weighting for inverse probability of treatment were used.RESULTS: Of 25 357 patients, 24.8% underwent LND (2001-2007: 3 167 patients vs 2008-2013: 3 133 patients). The median NRN was 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-7). Positive nodes were identified in 17.1%: 9.3% of pT2and 21.6% of pT3patients, who underwent LND. The median NPN was 2 (IQR: 1-3). In multivariable models, LND did not decrease CSM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29; P < 0.001). LND extent, defined as NRN, did not decrease CSM (HR 0.94; P = 0.3). Finally, multivariable models testing the effect of NPN showed increased CSM in pT3but not in pT2patients (HR 1.29 and 1.58, P = 0.02 and P = 0.1, respectively). NRN exerted a protective effect on CSM in patients with positive nodes (HR 0.98; P = 0.007).CONCLUSION: In contemporary and historical patients LND or its extent do not protect from CSM. However, the NPN increases the rate of CSM in pT3patients. Consequently, LND and its extent appear to have little if any therapeutic value in pT2-3NanyM0patients, besides its prognostic impact. High-risk non-metastatic patients may represent a target population for a multi-institutional prospective trial.
KW - Journal Article
U2 - 10.1111/bju.14024
DO - 10.1111/bju.14024
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 28940649
VL - 121
SP - 383
EP - 392
JO - BJU INT
JF - BJU INT
SN - 1464-4096
IS - 3
ER -