肾部分切除与冷冻消融治疗肾肿瘤的中期肿瘤预后:倾向评分匹配分析。

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-12 DOI:10.1097/JU.0000000000004524
Nicholas A Pickersgill, Joel M Vetter, Dylan J Mittauer, Lauren Elson, Joshua K Palka, Nimrod S Barashi, Eric H Kim, Ramakrishna Venkatesh, Sam B Bhayani, R Sherburne Figenshau
{"title":"肾部分切除与冷冻消融治疗肾肿瘤的中期肿瘤预后:倾向评分匹配分析。","authors":"Nicholas A Pickersgill, Joel M Vetter, Dylan J Mittauer, Lauren Elson, Joshua K Palka, Nimrod S Barashi, Eric H Kim, Ramakrishna Venkatesh, Sam B Bhayani, R Sherburne Figenshau","doi":"10.1097/JU.0000000000004524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cryoablation (CA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) are effective nephron-sparing treatments of small renal masses. While guidelines list thermal ablation as an option for tumors < 3 cm, limited data compare PN and CA in larger tumors. We compared intermediate-term oncologic outcomes between PN and CA in renal masses > 3 cm.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients treated with PN or CA for cT1/cT2, N0M0 renal masses > 3 cm between 2006 and 2016 were identified. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:2 ratio for patients undergoing CA or PN based on age, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor size, and nephrometry score. Disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred thirteen and 57 patients underwent PN and CA with a median follow-up of 4.5 and 3.8 years, respectively. CA was associated with significantly lower 5-year DFS compared with PN (75% vs 94%, <i>P</i> < .001). Local recurrence was more common after CA compared with PN (5.3% vs 1.8%). Technical failure occurred with 32% of CA. However, no significant differences were observed in 5-year MFS (100% for CA vs 96% for PN, <i>P</i> = .2) or CSS (100% for CA vs 98% for PN, <i>P</i> = .4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CA is associated with lower DFS but similar MFS and CSS compared with PN in renal masses > 3 cm. CA is a viable option for well-selected patients with comorbidities or high surgical risk, when combined with salvage ablation as indicated.</p>","PeriodicalId":17471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urology","volume":" ","pages":"32-40"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intermediate-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Partial Nephrectomy vs Cryoablation in Renal Tumors > 3 cm: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas A Pickersgill, Joel M Vetter, Dylan J Mittauer, Lauren Elson, Joshua K Palka, Nimrod S Barashi, Eric H Kim, Ramakrishna Venkatesh, Sam B Bhayani, R Sherburne Figenshau\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JU.0000000000004524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cryoablation (CA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) are effective nephron-sparing treatments of small renal masses. While guidelines list thermal ablation as an option for tumors < 3 cm, limited data compare PN and CA in larger tumors. We compared intermediate-term oncologic outcomes between PN and CA in renal masses > 3 cm.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients treated with PN or CA for cT1/cT2, N0M0 renal masses > 3 cm between 2006 and 2016 were identified. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:2 ratio for patients undergoing CA or PN based on age, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor size, and nephrometry score. Disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred thirteen and 57 patients underwent PN and CA with a median follow-up of 4.5 and 3.8 years, respectively. CA was associated with significantly lower 5-year DFS compared with PN (75% vs 94%, <i>P</i> < .001). Local recurrence was more common after CA compared with PN (5.3% vs 1.8%). Technical failure occurred with 32% of CA. However, no significant differences were observed in 5-year MFS (100% for CA vs 96% for PN, <i>P</i> = .2) or CSS (100% for CA vs 98% for PN, <i>P</i> = .4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CA is associated with lower DFS but similar MFS and CSS compared with PN in renal masses > 3 cm. CA is a viable option for well-selected patients with comorbidities or high surgical risk, when combined with salvage ablation as indicated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"32-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004524\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:冷冻消融(CA)和肾部分切除术(PN)是小肾肿块保留肾的有效治疗方法。而指南将热消融列为3厘米肿瘤的选择。材料与方法:选取2006 - 2016年间因cT1/cT2、N0M0肾肿块> ~ 3cm接受PN或CA治疗的患者。根据年龄、BMI、Charlson合并症指数(CCI)、肿瘤大小和肾脏测量评分,对接受CA或PN的患者按1:2的比例进行倾向评分匹配。使用Kaplan-Meier分析估计无病生存期(DFS)、无转移生存期(MFS)、癌症特异性生存期(CSS)和总生存期(OS)。结果:113例和57例患者分别接受了PN和CA,中位随访时间分别为4.5年和3.8年。与PN(75%对94%,pp=0.2)或CSS (CA为100%对PN为98%,p=0.4)相比,CA与5年DFS显著降低相关。结论:与肾包块(直径30 ~ 3cm)相比,CA与较低的DFS相关,但MFS和CSS相似。对于有合并症或手术风险高的患者,CA是一个可行的选择,当与补救性消融相结合时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intermediate-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Partial Nephrectomy vs Cryoablation in Renal Tumors > 3 cm: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Purpose: Cryoablation (CA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) are effective nephron-sparing treatments of small renal masses. While guidelines list thermal ablation as an option for tumors < 3 cm, limited data compare PN and CA in larger tumors. We compared intermediate-term oncologic outcomes between PN and CA in renal masses > 3 cm.

Materials and methods: Patients treated with PN or CA for cT1/cT2, N0M0 renal masses > 3 cm between 2006 and 2016 were identified. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:2 ratio for patients undergoing CA or PN based on age, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor size, and nephrometry score. Disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Results: One hundred thirteen and 57 patients underwent PN and CA with a median follow-up of 4.5 and 3.8 years, respectively. CA was associated with significantly lower 5-year DFS compared with PN (75% vs 94%, P < .001). Local recurrence was more common after CA compared with PN (5.3% vs 1.8%). Technical failure occurred with 32% of CA. However, no significant differences were observed in 5-year MFS (100% for CA vs 96% for PN, P = .2) or CSS (100% for CA vs 98% for PN, P = .4).

Conclusions: CA is associated with lower DFS but similar MFS and CSS compared with PN in renal masses > 3 cm. CA is a viable option for well-selected patients with comorbidities or high surgical risk, when combined with salvage ablation as indicated.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Urology
Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
7.60%
发文量
3746
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Official Journal of the American Urological Association (AUA), and the most widely read and highly cited journal in the field, The Journal of Urology® brings solid coverage of the clinically relevant content needed to stay at the forefront of the dynamic field of urology. This premier journal presents investigative studies on critical areas of research and practice, survey articles providing short condensations of the best and most important urology literature worldwide, and practice-oriented reports on significant clinical observations.
×
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