Rising Serum Uric Acid Level Is Negatively Associated with Survival in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Aim and Background: To investigate the association of serum uric acid (SUA) levels along with statin use in Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC), as statins may be associated with improved outcomes in RCC and SUA elevation is associated with increased risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Retrospective study of patients undergoing surgery for RCC with preoperative/postoperative SUA levels between 8/2005-8/2018. Analysis was carried out between patients with increased postoperative SUA vs. patients with decreased/stable postoperative SUA. Kaplan-Meier analysis (KMA) calculated overall survival (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS). Multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed to identify factors associated with increased SUA levels and all-cause mortality. The prognostic significance of variables for OS and RFS was analyzed by cox regression analysis. Results: Decreased/stable SUA levels were noted in 675 (74.6%) and increased SUA levels were noted in 230 (25.4%). A higher proportion of patients with decreased/stable SUA levels took statins (27.9% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.0039). KMA demonstrated improved 5- and 10-year OS (89% vs. 47% and 65% vs. 9%, p < 0.001) and RFS (94% vs. 45% and 93% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), favoring patients with decreased/stable SUA levels. MVA revealed that statin use (Odds ratio (OR) 0.106, p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (OR 2.661, p = 0.004), stage III and IV disease compared to stage I (OR 1.887, p = 0.015 and 10.779, p < 0.001, respectively), and postoperative de novo CKD stage III (OR 5.952, p < 0.001) were predictors for increased postoperative SUA levels. MVA for all-cause mortality showed that increasing BMI (OR 1.085, p = 0.002), increasing ASA score (OR 1.578, p = 0.014), increased SUA levels (OR 4.698, p < 0.001), stage IV disease compared to stage I (OR 7.702, p < 0.001), radical nephrectomy (RN) compared to partial nephrectomy (PN) (OR 1.620, p = 0.019), and de novo CKD stage III (OR 7.068, p < 0.001) were significant factors. Cox proportional hazard analysis for OS revealed that increasing age (HR 1.017, p = 0.004), increasing BMI (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.099, p < 0.001), increasing SUA (HR 4.708, p < 0.001), stage III and IV compared to stage I (HR 1.537, p = 0.013 and 3.299, p < 0.001), RN vs. PN (HR 1.497, p = 0.029), and de novo CKD stage III (HR 1.684, p < 0.001) were significant factors. Cox proportional hazard analysis for RFS demonstrated that increasing ASA score (HR 1.239, p < 0.001, increasing SUA (HR 9.782, p < 0.001), and stage II, III, and IV disease compared to stage I (HR 2.497, p < 0.001 and 3.195, p < 0.001 and 6.911, p < 0.001) were significant factors. Conclusions: Increasing SUA was associated with poorer outcomes. Decreased SUA levels were associated with statin intake and lower stage disease as well as lack of progression to CKD and anemia. Further investigation is requisite.

Neoadjuvant Sunitinib Decreases Inferior Vena Caval Thrombus Size and Is Associated With Improved Oncologic Outcomes: A Multicenter Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed outcomes of neoadjuvant sunitinib in patients with renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) and inferior vena caval (IVC) tumor and compared outcomes to patients who did not undergo neoadjuvant therapy before surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective comparison of RCC patients with IVC tumor who underwent neoadjuvant sunitinib before surgery versus those who did not. Response to sunitinib was defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Primary outcome was cancer-specific survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with primary and secondary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared survival in neoadjuvant and primary surgery groups. RESULTS: Data of 53 patients were analyzed (19 neoadjuvant sunitinib, 34 primary surgery; median follow-up, 58 months). Eighteen (9 in each group, P = .143) had metastatic RCC. There was no difference in IVC tumor level between the 2 groups (P = .76). After neoadjuvant sunitinib, median primary tumor decreased size from 8.1 to 6.8 cm, and IVC tumor decreased by 1.3 cm. IVC tumor level decreased in 8 (42.1%) of 19 and was stable in 10 (52.6%) of 19; 5 (26.3%) of 19 experienced partial response. Similar proportions of patients underwent robot-assisted or minimally invasive approaches (P = .351), and no differences were noted in complications (P = .194). Multivariate analysis showed neoadjuvant sunitinib was associated with improved cancer-specific survival (odds ratio = 3.28; P = .021). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly longer median cancer-specific survival (72 vs. 38 months, P = .023) for neoadjuvant sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant sunitinib was associated with a reduction in primary tumor and thrombus size as well as improved survival. Further investigation is needed to determine the utility of neoadjuvant sunitinib in RCC with IVC tumor.

Renal Functional Outcome of Partial Nephrectomy for Complex R.E.N.A.L. Score Tumors With or Without Neoadjuvant Sunitinib: A Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib might optimize the feasibility of partial nephrectomy (PN) for complex renal tumors with imperative indications. We compared the renal functional outcomes of patients with complex renal masses who had undergone sunitinib before PN with those of patients who had not required neoadjuvant sunitinib before PN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with renal cell carcinoma who had undergone PN for a complex renal mass (R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, 10-12) and imperative indications from January 2012 to July 2014. Neoadjuvant sunitinib was used in cases for which PN was not considered feasible. The cohort was divided into those patients who had undergone PN without neoadjuvant sunitinib and those who had undergone PN after sunitinib (no-neoadjuvant vs. neoadjuvant). The change in tumor size and R.E.N.A.L. score were assessed. The primary outcome was the change in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (ΔeGFR) from preoperatively to the last postoperative follow-up visit. RESULTS: The data from 125 consecutive patients were analyzed (47 neoadjuvant and 78 no-neoadjuvant; median follow-up, 21 months). The neoadjuvant plus PN patients had had a greater median tumor size preoperatively (7.2 vs. 6 cm; P = .045). Sunitinib caused a significant decrease in the median tumor size (from 7.2 to 5.8 cm [19.4%]; P = .012) and R.E.N.A.L. score (from 11 to 9; P = .001). No significant differences were found between the neoadjuvant and no-neoadjuvant groups in the ischemia time (P = .413) or incidence of complications (P = .728). The median ΔeGFR was similar (neoadjuvant, 6.4; no-neoadjuvant, 6.1; P = .534). Linear regression analysis for factors associated with an increasing ΔeGFR demonstrated increasing age (estimate, -0.074; P = .009) increasing body mass index (estimate, -0.087; P = .043), and decreasing baseline eGFR (estimate, -0.104; P = .02) as significant factors. CONCLUSION: The use of neoadjuvant sunitinib might facilitate complex PN and result in renal functional outcomes similar to those of patients with a complex renal mass who had not required neoadjuvant sunitinib.

Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for Pentafecta perioperative and renal functional outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We compared quality outcomes between transperitoneal (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN). METHODS: Two-center retrospective analysis of TRPN and RRPN from 10/2009 to 10/2015. Perioperative/renal function outcomes were analyzed. Primary endpoint was Pentafecta, a composite measure of quality [negative margin, no 30-day complication, ischemia time ≤25 min, return of glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to >90% from baseline at last follow-up, and no chronic kidney disease upstaging]. Multivariable analysis (MVA) for factors associated with lack of optimal outcome was performed. RESULTS: 404 patients (TRPN 263, RRPN 141) were analyzed. Comparing TRPN vs. RRPN, mean tumor size (3.1 vs. 2.9 cm, p = 0.122) and RENAL score (7.4 vs. 7.2, p = 0.503) were similar. Most TRPN were anterior (65.0%) and most RRPN posterior (65.3%, p < 0.001). Operative time (p = 0.001) was less for RRPN. No significant differences between TRPN vs. RRPN were noted for ischemia time (23.1 vs. 22.8 min, p = 0.313), blood loss (p = 0.772), positive margins (p = 0.590), complications (p = 0.537), length of stay (p = 0.296), ΔeGFR (p = 0.246), eGFR recovery to >90% (55.9 vs. 57.4%, p = 0.833), and lack of CKD upstaging (84.0 vs. 87.2%, p = 0.464). Pentafecta rates were not significantly different (TRPN 33.9 vs. RRPN 43.3%, p = 0.526). MVA revealed increasing RENAL score (OR 1.5, p < 0.001) and decreasing baseline eGFR (OR 2.4, p = 0.017) as predictive for lack of Pentafecta. CONCLUSIONS: TRPN and RRPN have similar quality outcomes, though RRPN may offer modest benefit for operative time and have utility in posterior tumors. Association of increasing RENAL score and decreased baseline eGFR with lack of Pentafecta suggests dominant role of non-modifiable factors.

Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for clinical T1b and T2a renal masses.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and multiport laparoscopic (MPL) radical nephrectomy (RN) for clinical T1b/T2a renal masses, as concerns continue regarding suitability and benefit of LESS for larger renal masses. METHODS: Retrospective single-surgeon comparison of LESS- and MPL-RN between 7/2005 and 11/2014. Sixty-three patients underwent LESS-RN (44 cT1b/19 cT2a); 133 underwent MPL (83 cT1b/50 cT2a). All patients were managed with a standardized care pathway. Primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, discharge pain score (visual analog pain, VAP), narcotic requirement (morphine equivalents, MSO4eq). RESULTS: 130/133 MPL and 62/63 LESS were successfully performed. For MPL and LESS groups: mean tumor diameter (cm) for cT1b was 5.3 vs. 5.4 (P=0.689); and for cT2a was 8.2 vs. 8.3 (P=0.728); mean OR time (min) was 126.3 vs. 132.7 (P=0.314); mean EBL (mL) was 139.5 vs.127.8 (P=0.49). No significant differences in complications were noted (P=0.781). LESS was associated with significant reductions in LOS (2.14 vs. 2.45 days, P=0.043), discharge VAP (1.3 vs. 2.2, P<0.001), and narcotic use (5.9 vs. 10.7 MSO4eq, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LESS is comparable to MPL-RN for cT1b and T2a renal tumors in terms of perioperative parameters and may confer benefit with respect to LOS and analgesic requirement.