The use of nephron-sparing intervention does not appear to be compromised after a period of active surveillance for patients with cT1 renal masses.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Michael Wang, Aaron Wilke, Samuel Goorman, Andrew McElroy, Jack Vercnocke, Ana Maria Moser, Monica Van Til, Alice Semerjian, Mahin Mirza, Thomas Maatman, Michael Kozminski, Craig G Rogers, Brian R Lane, Kevin Ginsburg
{"title":"The use of nephron-sparing intervention does not appear to be compromised after a period of active surveillance for patients with cT1 renal masses.","authors":"Michael Wang, Aaron Wilke, Samuel Goorman, Andrew McElroy, Jack Vercnocke, Ana Maria Moser, Monica Van Til, Alice Semerjian, Mahin Mirza, Thomas Maatman, Michael Kozminski, Craig G Rogers, Brian R Lane, Kevin Ginsburg","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objective: </strong>It remains unknown whether the use of nephron sparing intervention (NSI) is impacted with delayed intervention after a period of active surveillance (AS) compared with immediate intervention for patients with clinically localized renal masses ≤7cm (cT1RMs). We hypothesized that the proportion of patients undergoing NSI is similar among patients undergoing immediate and delayed intervention for cT1RMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospective reviewed the prospectively maintained Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for patients undergoing intervention for cT1RMs from 05/2017 to 09/2023. The primary outcome was type of treatment received: radical nephrectomy (RN) or NSI (partial nephrectomy, ablation, or stereotactic body radiation therapy). The main independent variable was timing of treatment: immediate (treatment within 90 days) vs. delayed intervention (>90 days). We fit a mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression model to assess for the adjusted association of immediate vs delayed intervention with the receipt of NSI and estimate an adjusted probability of NSI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 2,156 patients, of whom 93% underwent immediate intervention and 7% underwent a period of AS prior to delayed intervention. Median time from initial visit to intervention was 1.4 (IQR 0.9-2.0) and 13 (IQR 7.7-21) months in the immediate vs delayed intervention groups, respectively. In the multivariable model, we did not appreciate a significant association between delayed intervention with receipt of NSI (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57-1.70, P >0.9). The adjusted proportion of NSI was 75% and 78% for patients in the immediate and delayed intervention cohorts, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients undergoing delayed intervention after AS had similar use of NSI compared with those undergoing immediate intervention. Active surveillance for patients with cT1RMs does not appear to compromise the ability to perform nephron sparing interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and objective: It remains unknown whether the use of nephron sparing intervention (NSI) is impacted with delayed intervention after a period of active surveillance (AS) compared with immediate intervention for patients with clinically localized renal masses ≤7cm (cT1RMs). We hypothesized that the proportion of patients undergoing NSI is similar among patients undergoing immediate and delayed intervention for cT1RMs.

Methods: We retrospective reviewed the prospectively maintained Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for patients undergoing intervention for cT1RMs from 05/2017 to 09/2023. The primary outcome was type of treatment received: radical nephrectomy (RN) or NSI (partial nephrectomy, ablation, or stereotactic body radiation therapy). The main independent variable was timing of treatment: immediate (treatment within 90 days) vs. delayed intervention (>90 days). We fit a mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression model to assess for the adjusted association of immediate vs delayed intervention with the receipt of NSI and estimate an adjusted probability of NSI.

Results: We identified 2,156 patients, of whom 93% underwent immediate intervention and 7% underwent a period of AS prior to delayed intervention. Median time from initial visit to intervention was 1.4 (IQR 0.9-2.0) and 13 (IQR 7.7-21) months in the immediate vs delayed intervention groups, respectively. In the multivariable model, we did not appreciate a significant association between delayed intervention with receipt of NSI (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57-1.70, P >0.9). The adjusted proportion of NSI was 75% and 78% for patients in the immediate and delayed intervention cohorts, respectively.

Conclusion: Patients undergoing delayed intervention after AS had similar use of NSI compared with those undergoing immediate intervention. Active surveillance for patients with cT1RMs does not appear to compromise the ability to perform nephron sparing interventions.

在对 cT1 肾肿块患者进行一段时间的积极监测后,采用保留肾脏的干预措施似乎不会受到影响。
导言和目的:对于临床局部肾肿块≤7cm(cT1RMs)患者,在积极监测(AS)一段时间后进行延迟介入治疗(NSI)与立即介入治疗相比,是否会影响肾小球疏通介入治疗(NSI)的使用仍是未知数。我们假设,在对 cT1RMs 立即和延迟介入治疗的患者中,接受 NSI 的患者比例相似:我们回顾性审查了密歇根州泌尿外科改进协作组(MUSIC)的前瞻性登记资料,其中包括从 2017 年 5 月至 2023 年 9 月接受介入治疗的 cT1RMs 患者。主要结果是接受治疗的类型:根治性肾切除术(RN)或NSI(肾部分切除术、消融术或立体定向体放射治疗)。主要自变量是治疗时间:立即治疗(90 天内治疗)与延迟干预(90 天以上)。我们拟合了一个混合效应多变量逻辑回归模型,以评估立即干预与延迟干预与接受 NSI 的调整关联,并估计 NSI 的调整概率:我们确定了 2,156 名患者,其中 93% 接受了即时干预,7% 在延迟干预前接受了一段时间的 AS。立即干预组和延迟干预组从初次就诊到接受干预的中位时间分别为 1.4 个月(IQR 0.9-2.0 )和 13 个月(IQR 7.7-21 )。在多变量模型中,我们没有发现延迟干预与接受 NSI 之间存在显著关联(OR 0.99,95% CI 0.57-1.70,P >0.9)。调整后,立即干预组和延迟干预组患者的NSI比例分别为75%和78%:结论:强直性脊柱炎后接受延迟干预的患者与接受即时干预的患者使用NSI的情况相似。对患有cT1RMs的患者进行积极监测似乎并不会影响进行肾脏保留介入治疗的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
7.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信