These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of outcomes of radical and partial nephrectomy for sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: analysis of the national cancer database.
    Author: Wang LL, Yuen KL, Saitta C, Meagher MF, Liu F, Guer M, Puri D, Chen YW, Javier-Desloges J, McKay RR, Derweesh IH.
    Journal: World J Urol; 2024 Sep 06; 42(1):508. PubMed ID: 39240329.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of radical (RN) and partial nephrectomy (PN) in Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma (sRCC) utilizing a large national cohort. As RN is the reference standard for localized RCC with clinically aggressive features, PN in sRCC has been seldom studied. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2019 for patients who underwent PN and RN for sRCC (T1-T3N0-N1M0). We performed multivariable analyses (MVA) to determine factors associated with PN and all-cause mortality (ACM), and Kaplan-Meier Analysis (KMA) for overall survival (OS) in Charlson 0 patients who underwent PN vs. RN according to clinical stage. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 5,265 patients [RN 4,582 (87.0%)/PN 683 (13.0%)]. Increased odds of receiving PN was associated with papillary RCC (OR = 1.69, p = 0.015); inversely with increasing age (OR = 0.99, p = 0.004), cT2-cT3 (OR = 0.23, p < 0.001), and cN1 (OR = 0.2, p < 0.001). Worsened ACM was associated with positive margins (HR = 1.59, p < 0.001), male (HR = 1.1, p = 0.044), Charlson [Formula: see text]2 (HR = 1.47, p < 0.001), cT2-cT3 (HR 1.17-1.39, p < 0.001-0.035), and cN1 (HR = 1.59, p < 0.001). Improved ACM was noted with PN (HR = 0.64, p < 0.001), increasing household income (HR = 0.77-0.79, p < 0.001), and private insurance (HR = 0.80, p = 0.018). KMA showed PN had improved 5-year OS compared to RN in cT1 (86.5% vs. 63.2%, p < 0.001), and cT3 (61.0% vs. 44.0% p < 0.001), but not cT2 (p = 0.67). CONCLUSION: In select patients, PN with negative margins may not compromise outcomes and may provide benefit when indicated. Patients with private insurance and highest income experienced improved survival suggesting disparity in care.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]