Preoperative proteinuria correlates with renal function after partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Preoperative proteinuria is a prognostic factor of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed the association between preoperative proteinuria and postoperative renal function after partial nephrectomy (PN). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our records of patients with a single malignant renal mass who underwent PN between 2000 and 2021. Patients with data on preoperative proteinuria were included. Baseline characteristics and eGFR differences over time between patients with and without proteinuria were evaluated. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models (LRM) tested for presence of CKDIII or higher at 12-month and at last follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five patients were included. Twenty-two of them had preoperative proteinuria. No differences of age, smoking status, hypertension or diabetes, tumor size and use of ischemia were observed. Patients with proteinuria had a higher rate of CKD-III at baseline. At a median follow-up of 46.5 months (IQR 19-82), 117 patients developed de novo CKD-III, without differences in the two groups. No differences in decline in eGFR were observed. At univariate LRM, predictors of CKD-III at 12 months after PN were preoperative proteinuria (OR 3.2, 95%CI 1.4-7.8, p = 0.005), age and baseline eGFR, while predictors of CKD-III at last follow-up were age and baseline eGFR. At multivariable LRM, only baseline eGFR predicted CKD-III at 12-month and at last-follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative eGFR is the only independent predictor of long-term renal function after PN. Preoperative proteinuria correlates with renal function at 12 months. Proteinuria should be assessed before PN to identify patients at higher risk of renal functional deterioration in the 12 months following PN.

Risk of recurrence after nephrectomy: Comparison of predictive ability of validated risk models.

OBJECTIVE: To assess accuracy of University of California Los Angeles Integrated Staging System (UISS), Stage, Size, Grade and Necrosis (SSIGN) score, Leibovich score and GRade, Age, Nodes and Tumor (GRANT) score, the ASSURE (Adjuvant Sunitinib or Sorafenib vs. placebo in resected Unfavorable REnal cell carcinoma) score models and seventh American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/TNM staging system in predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) in surgically-treated non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test tested RFS according to risk groups among the UISS, SSIGN, Leibovich and GRANT models and the AJCC/TNM system. The Heagerty's C-index for survival tested for discrimination of each model at different time points after nephrectomy. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-eight M0 ccRCC patients were included. RFS significantly differed among each risk category for all models (P < 0.001). SSIGN showed the highest c-index over time (from 0.89 at 6-month to 0.82 at 60-month), followed by Leibovich (from 0.89-0.82), AJCC/TNM stage (from 0.82-0.77), ASSURE (from 0.81 to 0.76), GRANT (from 0.83-0.73) and UISS (from 0.76-0.72). For all models, peak discriminatory ability was reached before 12 months. The most prominent decline occurred within 24 months and reaches the lowest discriminatory ability at 60 months. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive models, with preference for SSIGN and Leibovich scores, are reliable to predict recurrence after nephrectomy and should be recommended to tailor postoperative surveillance protocols.

Oncological outcomes of active surveillance and percutaneous cryoablation of small renal masses are similar at intermediate term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) and minimally invasive ablative therapies such as percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) are emerging as alternative treatment modalities in the management of small renal masses (SRMs). METHODS: Fifty-nine patients underwent PCA since 2011 and 75 underwent AS since 2010 at two different institutions. Only patients with follow-up ≥6 months were included. All patients were followed with a standardized protocol. Treatment failure was defined by dimensional progression for AS and renal recurrence for PCA, in addition to stage and/or metastatic progression for both groups. RESULTS: Treatment failure was observed in 14 cases (18.7%) during AS (mainly due to dimensional progression) and 12 patients (16%) underwent delayed intervention with a mean follow-up of 36.83 months. Seven patients (11.9%) in the PCA group experienced treatment failure with a mean follow-up of 33.39 months and three of them underwent re-ablation successfully. Cancer-specific-survival at 2 and 5 years was 100% and 95,8% in AS-group vs. 98.2% and 98.2% in PCA-group (P=0.831). One patient in both groups died from metastatic disease. Overall-survival at 2 and 5 years was 91.7% and 82.4% in the AS group vs. 96.5% and 96.5% in the PCA group (P=0.113). Failure-free survival at 2 and 5 years was 90.9% and 70.1% in the AS group vs. 93.1% and 70.9% in the PCA group (P=0.645). CONCLUSIONS: AS and PCA provide similar survival outcomes and are safe and valid treatment options for elderly and comorbid patients with SRMs.

Assessment of predictors of renal cell carcinoma progression after nephrectomy at short- and medium-term follow-up and implication on surveillance protocols.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of risk of RCC progression after surgery is important for follow-up planning. We identified predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in a large single institutional cohort and investigated patterns and sites of progression according to stage and grade. METHODS: Node-negative non-metastatic clear-cell RCC (ccRCC) patients treated with radical or partial nephrectomy from 2000 to 2020 were included. Sites of progression were defined as thoracic, abdominal and others (bone/brain). Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models tested for PFS and CSS. RESULTS: Of 384 clear cell RCC N0M0 patients, 301 (78.4%) vs. 83 (21.6%) were pT1-2 vs. pT3-4, respectively; 253 (65.9%) vs. 130 (33.9%) were G1-G2 vs. G3-G4. Thoracic progressions occurred in 2.7% pT1-T2 vs. 21.7% pT3-T4 and 2.8% G1-G2 vs. 14.6% G3-G4 tumors. Abdominal progressions occurred in 4.0% pT1-T2 vs. 13.3% pT3-T4 and 4.3% G1-G2 vs. 9.2% G3-G4. Other progressions occurred in 0.3% pT1-T2 vs. 9.6% pT3-T4 and 0.8% G1-G2 vs. 5.4% G3-G4 (5.4%). Five-year PFS and CSS were 81.7 and 90.6%, respectively. At MCR models, pT3-4 (HR 9.1, P<0.001), G3-G4 (HR 2.7, P=0.003) and PSMs (HR 6.1, P<0.001) independently predicted PFS. Similarly, pT3-4 (HR 10.1, P<0.001), G3-G4 (HR 4.1, P=0.02), and PSMs (HR 5.2, P=0.04) independently predicted CSS. CONCLUSIONS: In ccRCC N0M0 patients, G3-G4, pT3-4, PSMs were independent predictors of progression after surgery. Lower stage and grade ccRCCs progress predominantly in the abdominal sites and may be followed with less frequent extra-abdominal imaging compared to more advanced/aggressive tumors.

Paratesticular seminoma: echographic features and histological diagnosis with review of the literature.

Primary extratesticular seminomas exceptionally occur in the epididymis or in the paratesticular region/spermatic cord. Some old papers included poor histological description or insufficient photographic documentation, reducing the number of faithful cases: an up-to-date systematic review is lacking. We report the 4th primary seminoma of the paratesticular region/spermatic cord in a 35-year-old man, including the first echographic description. We provide review of the literature and etiopathogenetic discussion. Ultrasound examination showed a right paratesticular, solid, heterogeneous mass (iso-hypoechoic with hyperechoic striae; peri- and intra-lesional vascular signals) with no testicular involvement: the paratesticular origin was confirmed by pathological examination. Despite careful gross examination and extensive sampling, the 6.5-cm extratesticular tumor revealed only one microscopic focus with minimal invasion (<2 mm) of the atrophic testicular parenchyma. Intratubular germ cell neoplasia or morphologic features of a regressed testicular tumor (fibrosis/scar, necrosis, hyalinization, calcification, inflammation) were not found. Primary seminomas of the paratesticular region/spermatic cord occurred at an older mean age and presented as bigger lesions if compared to the 9 primary epididymal seminomas reported in literature. Clinical-pathological correlation and accurate sampling are mandatory for a correct diagnosis.

Are there any relations among transplant centre volume, surgical technique and anatomy for donor graft selection? Ten-year multicentric Italian experience on mini-invasive living donor nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Selection of the right or left living donor kidney for transplantation is influenced by many variables. In the present multi centric study including 21 Italian transplant centres, we evaluated whether centre volume or surgical technique may influence the selection process. METHODS: Intra- and perioperative donor data, donor kidney function, and recipient and graft survival were collected among 693 mini-invasive living donor nephrectomies performed from 2002 to 2014. Centre volume (LOW, 1-50 cases; HIGH, >50 cases) and surgical technique (FULL-LAP, full laparoscopic and robotic; HA-LAP, hand-assisted laparoscopy; MINI-OPEN, mini-lumbotomy) were correlated with selection of right or left donor kidney and with donor and recipient outcome. RESULTS: HIGH-volume centres retrieved a higher rate of donor right kidneys (29.3% versus 17.6%, P < 0.01) with single artery (83.1% versus 76.4%, P < 0.05) compared with LOW-volume centres. Surgical technique correlated significantly with rate of donor right kidney and presence of multiple arteries: MINI-OPEN (53% and 13%) versus HA-LAP (29% and 22%) versus FULL-LAP (11% and 23%), P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively. All donors had an uneventful outcome; donor bleeding was more frequent in LOW-volume centres (4% versus 0.9%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Centre volume and surgical technique influenced donor kidney side selection. Donor nephrectomy in LOW-volume centres was associated with higher risk of donor bleeding.