Caroline Pettenati, Jean-Christophe Bernhard, Zine-Eddine Khene, Umberto Capitanio, Giacomo Musso, Laurence Albiges, Larissa Rainho, Gaëlle Margue, Thibault Waeckel, Gregory Verhoest, Lucas Bento, Nicolas Doumerc, Louis Surlemont, Yann Neuzillet, Thierry Lebret, Niels Graafland, Saeed Dabestani, Axel Bex, Morgan Rouprêt, Karim Bensalah, Pierre Bigot
{"title":"局部肾癌切除后腹膜复发:一项欧洲多中心的发病率、模式和治疗分析(PEMET研究- uroccr 124)。","authors":"Caroline Pettenati, Jean-Christophe Bernhard, Zine-Eddine Khene, Umberto Capitanio, Giacomo Musso, Laurence Albiges, Larissa Rainho, Gaëlle Margue, Thibault Waeckel, Gregory Verhoest, Lucas Bento, Nicolas Doumerc, Louis Surlemont, Yann Neuzillet, Thierry Lebret, Niels Graafland, Saeed Dabestani, Axel Bex, Morgan Rouprêt, Karim Bensalah, Pierre Bigot","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.08.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peritoneal recurrence (PREC) following nephrectomy for localized renal cancer (RCC) is rare. Our objective was to report a multicenter analysis of PREC to analyze incidence, treatment, survival and risk factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 1987 and 2023, patients with PREC following radical or partial nephrectomy (PN) for localized RCC across ten European institutions (UroCCR, NKI, IRCCS, Foch and Gustave Roussy centers) were included. PREC patterns were defined as isolated PREC (iPREC) and PREC associated with other metastatic sites (mPREC). The main objective was to evaluate PREC incidence (n PREC / n RCC surgeries). Secondary objectives were to assess PREC treatments, patients survival and risk factors associated with iPREC as compared to mPREC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 117 patients with PREC, including 35 iPREC (30%) and 82 mPREC (70%). PREC incidence was 0.88%. Compared to mPREC, iPREC was significantly associated with PN (OR 4.1, 95% CI [1.7-9.5], P= 0.001), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.3-8.2], P= 0.007), and lower Leibovich risk scores (OR 4.6, 95% CI [1.9-11.0], P= 0.001). In multivariable analysis, Leibovich score remained significant (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.2-8.8], P= 0.016). Treatment was mainly systemic (66.7%). Surgical treatment was performed in 11 iPREC cases, with 10 patients remaining progression-free at a median follow-up of 54 months. Overall survival was significantly better in iPREC group (P= 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PREC incidence was below 1%. Our results suggest 2 distinct mechanisms. One involves local spread, potentially favored by MIS and PN, while the other corresponds to a metastatic dissemination driven by tumor aggressiveness. iPREC appears to have better prognosis as compared to mPREC and be effectively treated with surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peritoneal recurrence following nephrectomy for localized renal cancer: A multicenter European real-world analysis of incidence, pattern and treatment (PEMET study-UroCCR 124).\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Pettenati, Jean-Christophe Bernhard, Zine-Eddine Khene, Umberto Capitanio, Giacomo Musso, Laurence Albiges, Larissa Rainho, Gaëlle Margue, Thibault Waeckel, Gregory Verhoest, Lucas Bento, Nicolas Doumerc, Louis Surlemont, Yann Neuzillet, Thierry Lebret, Niels Graafland, Saeed Dabestani, Axel Bex, Morgan Rouprêt, Karim Bensalah, Pierre Bigot\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.08.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peritoneal recurrence (PREC) following nephrectomy for localized renal cancer (RCC) is rare. Our objective was to report a multicenter analysis of PREC to analyze incidence, treatment, survival and risk factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 1987 and 2023, patients with PREC following radical or partial nephrectomy (PN) for localized RCC across ten European institutions (UroCCR, NKI, IRCCS, Foch and Gustave Roussy centers) were included. PREC patterns were defined as isolated PREC (iPREC) and PREC associated with other metastatic sites (mPREC). The main objective was to evaluate PREC incidence (n PREC / n RCC surgeries). Secondary objectives were to assess PREC treatments, patients survival and risk factors associated with iPREC as compared to mPREC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 117 patients with PREC, including 35 iPREC (30%) and 82 mPREC (70%). PREC incidence was 0.88%. Compared to mPREC, iPREC was significantly associated with PN (OR 4.1, 95% CI [1.7-9.5], P= 0.001), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.3-8.2], P= 0.007), and lower Leibovich risk scores (OR 4.6, 95% CI [1.9-11.0], P= 0.001). In multivariable analysis, Leibovich score remained significant (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.2-8.8], P= 0.016). Treatment was mainly systemic (66.7%). Surgical treatment was performed in 11 iPREC cases, with 10 patients remaining progression-free at a median follow-up of 54 months. Overall survival was significantly better in iPREC group (P= 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PREC incidence was below 1%. Our results suggest 2 distinct mechanisms. One involves local spread, potentially favored by MIS and PN, while the other corresponds to a metastatic dissemination driven by tumor aggressiveness. iPREC appears to have better prognosis as compared to mPREC and be effectively treated with surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"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.2025.08.005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.08.005","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
摘要
背景:局部肾癌(RCC)切除术后腹膜复发(PREC)是罕见的。我们的目的是报道一项多中心分析,分析PREC的发病率、治疗、生存和危险因素。方法:1987年至2023年间,来自10个欧洲机构(UroCCR、NKI、IRCCS、Foch和Gustave Roussy中心)的局部肾细胞癌根治性或部分性肾切除术(PN)后PREC患者纳入研究。PREC模式被定义为分离的PREC (iPREC)和与其他转移部位相关的PREC (mPREC)。主要目的是评估PREC的发生率(n PREC / n RCC手术)。次要目的是评估与mPREC相比,iPREC的治疗、患者生存和相关的危险因素。结果:我们纳入了117例PREC患者,其中iPREC 35例(30%),mPREC 82例(70%)。PREC发病率为0.88%。与mPREC相比,iPREC与PN (OR 4.1, 95% CI [1.7-9.5], P= 0.001)、微创手术(OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.3-8.2], P= 0.007)和较低的Leibovich风险评分(OR 4.6, 95% CI [1.9-11.0], P= 0.001)显著相关。在多变量分析中,Leibovich评分仍然显著(OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.2-8.8], P= 0.016)。治疗以全身为主(66.7%)。11例iPREC患者接受了手术治疗,其中10例患者在中位随访54个月时无进展。iPREC组总生存率显著高于对照组(P= 0.007)。结论:PREC发病率低于1%。我们的研究结果表明了两种不同的机制。一种涉及局部扩散,可能受到MIS和PN的青睐,而另一种则对应于肿瘤侵袭性驱动的转移性传播。与mPREC相比,iPREC似乎有更好的预后,并且可以有效地通过手术治疗。
Peritoneal recurrence following nephrectomy for localized renal cancer: A multicenter European real-world analysis of incidence, pattern and treatment (PEMET study-UroCCR 124).
Background: Peritoneal recurrence (PREC) following nephrectomy for localized renal cancer (RCC) is rare. Our objective was to report a multicenter analysis of PREC to analyze incidence, treatment, survival and risk factors.
Methods: Between 1987 and 2023, patients with PREC following radical or partial nephrectomy (PN) for localized RCC across ten European institutions (UroCCR, NKI, IRCCS, Foch and Gustave Roussy centers) were included. PREC patterns were defined as isolated PREC (iPREC) and PREC associated with other metastatic sites (mPREC). The main objective was to evaluate PREC incidence (n PREC / n RCC surgeries). Secondary objectives were to assess PREC treatments, patients survival and risk factors associated with iPREC as compared to mPREC.
Results: We included 117 patients with PREC, including 35 iPREC (30%) and 82 mPREC (70%). PREC incidence was 0.88%. Compared to mPREC, iPREC was significantly associated with PN (OR 4.1, 95% CI [1.7-9.5], P= 0.001), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.3-8.2], P= 0.007), and lower Leibovich risk scores (OR 4.6, 95% CI [1.9-11.0], P= 0.001). In multivariable analysis, Leibovich score remained significant (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.2-8.8], P= 0.016). Treatment was mainly systemic (66.7%). Surgical treatment was performed in 11 iPREC cases, with 10 patients remaining progression-free at a median follow-up of 54 months. Overall survival was significantly better in iPREC group (P= 0.007).
Conclusions: PREC incidence was below 1%. Our results suggest 2 distinct mechanisms. One involves local spread, potentially favored by MIS and PN, while the other corresponds to a metastatic dissemination driven by tumor aggressiveness. iPREC appears to have better prognosis as compared to mPREC and be effectively treated with surgery.
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.