-
Urologic Oncology Sep 2023While surgical management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is curative for many patients, others may relapse and could benefit from adjuvant treatments. Immune checkpoint... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
While surgical management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is curative for many patients, others may relapse and could benefit from adjuvant treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been proposed as a potential adjuvant therapy for improving survival in these patients, but the benefit/risk ratio of ICI in the perioperative setting remains unclear.
METHODS
A systematic review and a meta-analysis of phase III trials of perioperative ICI (anti PD1/PD-L1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 agents) in RCC was conducted.
RESULTS
The analysis included results from 4 phase III trials, comprising 3,407 patients. ICI did not show a significant increase in disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.04; p: 0.11) or overall survival [OS] (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40-1.34; p: 0.31). High-grade adverse events were more frequent in the immunotherapy arm (OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.53-4.59; p: <0.001), and high-grade treatment-related adverse events were 8 times more frequent in the experimental arm (OR: 8.07; 95% CI: 3.14-20.75; p: <0.001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences favoring the experimental arm in females (HR: 0.71; 95 CI 0.55-0.92; p: 0.009), in sarcomatoid differentiation (HR: 0.60 95% CI 0.41-0.89; p: 0.01), and PD-L1 positive tumors (HR HR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.61-0.90; p: 0.003). No significant effect was found in patients according to age, type of nephrectomy (radical vs. partial), and stage (M1 without evidence of disease vs. M0 patients).
CONCLUSION
Our comprehensive meta-analysis generally suggests that immunotherapy does not confer a survival advantage in the perioperative setting for RCC, with the exception of one positive study. While the overall results are not statistically significant, individual patient factors and other variables may play a role in determining who benefits from immunotherapy. Therefore, despite the mixed findings, immunotherapy may still be a viable treatment option for certain patients, and further studies are needed to determine which patient subgroups would be most likely to benefit.
Topics: Female; Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; B7-H1 Antigen; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Immunotherapy; Kidney Neoplasms
PubMed: 37331822
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.05.002 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2020To summarize and analyze the current evidence about surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes between laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial...
PURPOSE
To summarize and analyze the current evidence about surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes between laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Through a systematical search of multiple scientific databases in March 2020, we performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. Meanwhile, we assessed the quality of the relevant evidence according to the framework in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS
A total of 26 studies with 8095 patients were included. There was no statistical difference between the LPN and OPN in the terms of operation time (p=0.13), intraoperative complications (p=0.94), recurrence (p=0.56), cancer-specific survival (p=0.72), disease-free survival (p=0.72), and variations of estimated glomerular filtration rate (p=0.31). The LPN group had significantly less estimated blood loss (P<0.00001), lower blood transfusion (p=0.04), shorter length of hospital stay (p<0.00001), lower total (p=0.03) and postoperative complications (p=0.02), higher positive surgical margin (p=0.005), higher overall survival (p<0.00001), and less increased serum creatinine (p=0.002). The subgroup analysis showed that no clinically meaningful differences were found for T1a tumors in terms of operation time (p=0.11) and positive surgical margin (p=0.23). In addition, the subgroup analysis also suggested that less estimated blood loss (p<0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (p<0.00001) were associated with the LPN group for T1a tumors.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis revealed that the LPN is a feasible and safe alternative to the OPN with comparable surgical, oncologic, and functional outcomes. However, the results should be applied prudently in the clinic because of the low quality of evidence. Further quality studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness LPN and its postoperative quality of life compared with OPN.
PubMed: 33194725
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.583979 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Jun 2024A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate the efficacy of the AirSeal Valveless Trocar Needle Insufflation System in robot-assisted partial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate the efficacy of the AirSeal Valveless Trocar Needle Insufflation System in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). The study compared the differences in perioperative outcomes between the AirSeal insufflation group (AIS) and the conventional insufflation group (CIS). A systematic search of databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of science was performed to identify studies reporting perioperative outcomes between the AirSeal insufflation group (AIS) and the conventional insufflation group (CIS) in RAPN. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024524335). The primary outcome was to compare the incidence of subcutaneous emphysema (SCE) and postoperative pain scores between the two approaches. The review included four studies with 379 patients, 194 in the AIS group and 185 in the CIS group. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar in all outcomes. SCE was significantly lower in the AIS group than in the CIS group [(OR) 0.30 (0.16, 0.54), p < 0.001]. Postoperative 12-h pain scores were also significantly lower in the AIS group compared to the CIS group [(WMD) - 0.93 (- 1.67, - 1.09), p = 0.014]. Both groups showed a significant reduction in length of hospitalization [(WMD) - 0.12 (- 0.84, 0.60), p = 0.746], thermal ischemia time [(WMD) 4.72 (- 5.71, 15.15), p = 0.375], amount of lost hemoglobin [(WMD) - 0.19 (- 0.53, 0.15), p = 0.284], pneumothorax [(OR) 0.13 (0.02,1.10), p = 0.062], mediastinal emphysema [(OR) 0.55 (0.20, 1.46), p = 0.230], and 4-h pain score [(WMD) - 0.25 (- 1.16, 0.65), p = 0.584]; no significant differences were observed. The incidence of subcutaneous emphysema SCE and 12-h pain scores were significantly lower in the AIS group compared to the CIS group. The AirSeal system demonstrated similar efficacy and a higher safety profile than the conventional insufflation system in robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy; however, due to the lack of a randomized study on the topic, further data are needed.
Topics: Robotic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Nephrectomy; Insufflation; Pain, Postoperative; Subcutaneous Emphysema; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications; Kidney Neoplasms
PubMed: 38922386
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02023-4 -
Urologic Oncology Mar 2023To determine the patient characteristics and role of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in the treatment of children and young adults with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the patient characteristics and role of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in the treatment of children and young adults with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
METHODS
A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was conducted in December 2021 according to Cochrane collaboration recommendations. All included manuscripts were assessed for patient characteristics and all reported outcomes for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN), and radical nephrectomy (RN) outcomes were abstracted as a comparison group. Primary outcomes included surgical outcomes, overall survival, kidney outcomes. Outcomes were pooled with weighted mean and ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed given study quality. This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022300261).
RESULTS
We found a total of 16 studies describing 119 and 559 unique patients undergoing PN and RN, respectively, with a mean age of 12.2 years and mean follow-up of 59.1 months. The mean tumor size for patients undergoing PN was 3.5 cm. Of the 113 patients undergoing PN with available data, 109 were alive at follow-up (98%). No studies reported long-term kidney outcomes, and four studies reported surgical outcomes. All studies had at least moderate risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of NSS in children and young adults with RCC is feasible in selected patients. However, small sample sizes, confounding, and low study quality limit clinical recommendation on NSS in this population. There are significant opportunities for future research on the use of NSS in RCC, especially with systematic reporting of oncological, kidney, and surgical outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Child; Young Adult; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Kidney; Nephrons; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36428167
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.09.015 -
Cancers Mar 2024Percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) can be an alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) in selected patients with stage T1 renal tumours. Existing meta-analyses regarding... (Review)
Review
Percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) can be an alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) in selected patients with stage T1 renal tumours. Existing meta-analyses regarding ablative techniques compared both laparoscopic and PCA with PN. That is why we decided to perform a meta-analysis that focused solely on PCA. The aim of this study was to compare the complications and functional and oncological outcomes between PCA and PN. A systematic literature search was performed in January 2024. Data for dichotomous and continuous variables were expressed as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Effect measures for the local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were expressed as pooled hazard ratios with 95% CIs. Among 6487 patients included in the 14 selected papers, 1554 (23.9%) and 4924 (76.1%) underwent PCA and PN, respectively. Compared with the PN group, patients undergoing PCA had significantly lower overall and major postoperative complication rates. There was no difference in renal function between PCA and PN groups. When analysing collective data for cT1 renal carcinoma, PCA was associated with worse LRFS compared with PN. However, subgroup analysis revealed that in the case of PCA, LRFS was not decreased in patients with cT1a tumours. Moreover, patients undergoing robotic-assisted PN had improved LRFS compared with those undergoing PCA. No significant differences were observed between PCA and PN in terms of MFS and CSS. Finally, PCA was associated with worse OS than PN in both collective and subgroup analyses. In conclusion, PCA is associated with favourable postoperative complication rates relative to PN. Regarding LRFS, PCA is not worse than PN in cT1a tumours but has a substantially relevant disadvantage in cT1b tumours. Also, RAPN might be the only surgical modality that provides better LRFS than PCA. In cT1 tumours, PCA shows MFS and CSS comparable to PN. Lastly, PCA is associated with a shorter OS than PN.
PubMed: 38539509
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16061175 -
BMC Urology Jan 2024This study aims to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of cryoablation (CA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) for managing small renal masses in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes after cryoablation or partial nephrectomy for small renal masses in solitary kidneys: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM
This study aims to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of cryoablation (CA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) for managing small renal masses in patients with solitary kidneys. The study seeks to assess the efficacy and safety of both interventions, evaluating their impact on kidney function and their ability to mitigate cancer recurrence.
METHODS
Searches were systematically conducted on PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, SinoMed, and Google Scholar, identifying seven observational studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata v.12.0 and Review Manager version 5.2. Results for dichotomous variables are expressed using odds ratios, and weighted mean differences are used for continuous variables.
RESULTS
Our findings revealed that patients undergoing CA experienced significantly shorter operative time (p < 0.0001), reduced estimated blood loss (p < 0.00001), a shorter length of stay (p = 0.0001), and fewer postoperative complications (p = 0.02) compared to those undergoing PN. Although the CA group exhibited a lower transfusion rate (p = 0.69) compared with the PN group, the difference was not statistically significant. The combined data analysis demonstrated a significantly lower increase in serum creatinine levels after surgery in the CA group compared with the PN group (p = 0.003). Similarly, there was a noteworthy decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate after surgery in the PN group compared with the CA group (p < 0.0001). While not statistically significant, the CA group showed a lower postoperative dialysis rate (p = 0.11). Regarding oncological outcomes, the analysis revealed no significant differences between CA and PN concerning local recurrence (p = 0.2) and distant metastasis (p = 0.12), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis indicates comparable efficacy between PN and CA in controlling tumour recurrence and metastasis. However, CA is associated with superior preservation of renal function, significantly enhanced perioperative outcomes, and fewer postoperative complications. Based on our data, it can be inferred that the scope for applying CA might be expanded to encompass more patients seeking a less invasive treatment option.
Topics: Humans; Cryosurgery; Kidney; Nephrectomy; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38268005
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01406-x -
Journal of Endourology Apr 2024A variety of surgical and nonsurgical management options for small renal masses (SRMs) now exist. Surgery in the form of partial nephrectomy (PN) has three different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A variety of surgical and nonsurgical management options for small renal masses (SRMs) now exist. Surgery in the form of partial nephrectomy (PN) has three different approaches. It is unclear which PN approach, if any, offers superior clinical outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes in patients with SRMs <4 cm undergoing PN through the open partial nephrectomy (OPN), laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), or robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) approach and to establish the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches. A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing at least two of the above techniques. Eighteen studies and 17,013 patients were included in our study. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist framework was performed. OPN was used as the baseline comparator. The prespecified primary outcome was R0 resection rates. Secondary outcomes included operating time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusion rates, urine leak rates, significant morbidity, length of stay, and recurrence. There was no significant difference between the techniques in terms of R0 rates, tumor recurrence, urine leak rates, renal function, and >3a Clavien-Dindo complications. LPN had a longer ischemic time and operating time. OPN had a longer length of stay and higher average intraoperative blood loss. RPN had lower blood transfusion rates. All approaches are acceptable from an oncological perspective. The minimally invasive approaches (i.e., RPN and LPN) offer advantages in terms of morbidity; however, LPN may increase ischemic time and operative duration. Variations between perioperative outcomes may influence the choice of approach on a case-by-case and institutional basis.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Network Meta-Analysis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Laparoscopy; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 38149582
DOI: 10.1089/end.2023.0107 -
Surgical Innovation Dec 2019. The warm ischemia time (WIT) is key to successful laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
. The warm ischemia time (WIT) is key to successful laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the self-retaining barbed suture (SRBS) with a non-SRBS for parenchymal repair during LPN. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was performed up to March 2018. Inclusion criteria for this study were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational comparative studies assessing the SRBS and non-SRBS for parenchymal repair during LPN. Outcomes of interest included WIT, complications, overall operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and change of renal function. One RCT and 7 retrospective studies were identified, which included a total of 461 cases. Compared with the non-SRBS, use of the SRBS for parenchymal repair during LPN was associated with shorter WIT ( < .00001), shorter overall operative time ( < .00001), lower estimated blood loss ( = .02), and better renal function preservation ( = .001). There was no significant difference between the SRBS and non-SRBS with regard to complications ( = .08) and length of hospital stay ( = .25). The SRBS for parenchymal repair during LPN can significantly shorten the WIT and overall operative time, decrease blood loss, and preserve renal function.
Topics: Humans; Kidney; Kidney Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Nephrectomy; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Suture Techniques; Sutures; Treatment Outcome; Warm Ischemia
PubMed: 31215335
DOI: 10.1177/1553350619856167 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Oct 2022Augmented reality (AR) applied to surgical procedures refers to the superimposition of preoperative or intraoperative images into the operative field. Augmented reality...
INTRODUCTION
Augmented reality (AR) applied to surgical procedures refers to the superimposition of preoperative or intraoperative images into the operative field. Augmented reality has been increasingly used in myriad surgical specialties including urology. The following study reviews advance in the use of AR for improvements in urologic outcomes.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We identified all descriptive, validity, prospective randomized/nonrandomized trials and retrospective comparative/noncomparative studies about the use of AR in urology until March 2021. The Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were used for literature search. We conducted the study selection according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement) Guidelines. We limited included studies to only those using AR, excluding all that used virtual reality technology.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 60 studies were identified and included in the present analysis. Overall, 19 studies were descriptive/validity/phantom studies for specific AR methodologies, 4 studies were case reports, and 37 studies included clinical prospective/retrospective comparative studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Advances in AR have led to increasing registration accuracy as well as increased ability to identify anatomic landmarks and improve outcomes during urologic procedures such as RARP and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.
Topics: Augmented Reality; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Urology; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 35383432
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04726-7 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains...
BACKGROUND
The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains controversial. Two meta-analyses in 2018 and 2019 reported the postoperative mortality of PBT patients with RCC, but they did not investigate the effect on the survival of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature to demonstrate whether PBT affected postoperative survival in RCC patients who received nephrectomy.
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. Studies comparing RCC patients with or without PBT following either RN or PN were included in this analysis. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS), as well as 95% confidence intervals, were considered as effect sizes. All data were processed using Stata 15.1.
RESULTS
Ten retrospective studies involving 19,240 patients were included in this analysis, with the publication dates ranging from 2014 to 2022. Evidence revealed that PBT was significantly associated with the decline of OS (HR, 2.62; 95%CI: 1,98-3.46), RFS (HR, 2.55; 95%CI: 1.74-3.75), and CSS (HR, 3.15; 95%CI: 2.3-4.31) values. There was high heterogeneity among the study results due to the retrospective nature and the low quality of the included studies. Subgroup analysis findings suggested that the heterogeneity of this study might be caused by different tumor stages in the included articles. Evidence implied that PBT had no significant influence on RFS and CSS with or without robotic assistance, but it was still linked to worse OS (combined HR; 2.54 95% CI: 1.18, 5.47). Furthermore, the subgroup analysis with intraoperative blood loss lower than 800 ML revealed that PBT had no substantial impact on OS and CSS of postoperative RCC patients, whereas it was correlated with poor RFS (1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97).
CONCLUSIONS
RCC patients undergoing PBT after nephrectomy had poorer survival.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022363106.
PubMed: 36874080
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1092734