• Users Online: 101
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 156-162

Comparing the predictive values of diameter-axial-polar and renal scores for long-term trifecta outcomes in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma


1 Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei; Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Camillians Saint Mary's Hospital, Luodong, Taiwan
2 Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei; Department of Urology, Medical Research and Education, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, YuanShan Branch, YiLan; Department of Nursing, Cardinal Tien Junior College of Healthcare and Management, Taipei, Taiwan
3 Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

Date of Submission17-Oct-2019
Date of Decision07-Dec-2019
Date of Acceptance17-Jan-2020
Date of Web Publication25-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Chao Yuan Huang
No. 7, Chung Shan S. Road (Zhongshan S. Road), Zhongzheng District, Taipei City 10002
Taiwan
Chi Chih Lien
No. 7, Chung Shan S. Road (Zhongshan S. Road), Zhongzheng District, Taipei City 10002
Taiwan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/UROS.UROS_81_19

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Purpose: Few studies have reported the value of the diameter-axial-polar (DAP) score in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RaPN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and sequentially compare DAP and RENAL nephrometry score to predict long-term surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of RaPN for renal cancer. This study demonstrated that the DAP score is effective enough to predict long-term trifecta outcomes of RaPN. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected clinical data of 108 patients with pathologically confirmed RCC who received RaPN by a single surgeon during 2012–2017. The patients were stratified into low, intermediate, and high complexities according to the RENAL and DAP scoring systems. We analyzed warm ischemia time (WIT), cancer-specific survival, radiographic progression-free survival, positive rate of surgical margin, renal function from the preoperative period to postoperative 1st/6th month, and postoperative complications. Results: The median follow-up period was 36 months. The 3-year cancer-specific survival rate and 3-year radiographic progression-free survival were 98.4% and 95.2%, respectively. Four patients (3.6%) had positive surgical margins. The largest decrease of renal functions from pre- to postoperative 6th month was noted in the intermediate DAP score group. No difference was observed between the DAP and RENAL scores in terms of WIT in 25 min, positive margin, complication, 3-year radiographic local recurrence, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) change, but a significant difference was observed in WIT in 20 min (area under the curve of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.81 vs. 0.54, P = 0.03). Age is an independent factor for progression to CKD after RaPN (odds ratio = 1.054, 95% confidence interval = 1.008–1.102, P = 0.022). Complications occurred in 22 patients (20.4%), and the most common postoperative complications were bleeding (12.2%), postoperative fever (0.5%), and urinary leakage (0.3%). Conclusion: The DAP score is an easy and effective tool for predicting perioperative outcomes of RaPN, especially in WIT in 20 min.

Keywords: Diameter-axial-polar scores, nephrometry score, partial nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma, RENAL scores, robotic surgery


How to cite this article:
Lien CC, Chiang CH, Lu YC, Chang HC, Huang CY. Comparing the predictive values of diameter-axial-polar and renal scores for long-term trifecta outcomes in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Urol Sci 2020;31:156-62

How to cite this URL:
Lien CC, Chiang CH, Lu YC, Chang HC, Huang CY. Comparing the predictive values of diameter-axial-polar and renal scores for long-term trifecta outcomes in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Urol Sci [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 30];31:156-62. Available from: https://www.e-urol-sci.com/text.asp?2020/31/4/156/290860




  Introduction Top


The incidence of small renal mass (SRM) has increased gradually owing to modern imaging technology.[1] According to the 2017 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the 2014 European Association of Urology guidelines, partial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard treatment for SRM.[2],[3] However, in some patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) may not be suitable because of locally advanced tumor growth or because the tumor is present in an unfavorable location.[3] To standardize the description of renal tumors, objective anatomical classification systems, such as the Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical (PADUA) classification system, the RENAL nephrometry score, and C-index, have been developed.[4],[5],[6] Such a system is helpful because it allows an objective prediction of the potential morbidity of NSS techniques.[2] Simmons et al. proposed a novel nephrometric system that integrates the optimized attributes of the RENAL and C-index systems and diameter-axial-polar (DAP) nephrometry. DAP nephrometry involves a simplified methodology, decreased measurement variability, and a much stronger correlation with clinical outcomes.[7] However, some comparisons of DAP and RENAL scores for warm ischemia time (WIT), margin, and complications have been published,[8] but no head-to-head comparisons of survival or recurrence have yet been conducted. In this study, we examined correlations between DAP and RENAL scores and long-term outcomes. Finally, we compared the abilities of DAP and RENAL scores to predict trifecta (oncological, functional, and surgical) outcomes.


  Subjects and Methods Top


This study is registered with the National Taiwan University Hospital Research Ethics Committee (number 201305059RINC). We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients undergoing RaPN approaches for localized renal tumors between January 2012 and December 2017 by a single surgeon, Prof. Chao-Yuan Huang, in the National Taiwan University Hospital. The choice of used/applied surgical approach was based on the cost, expertise of the surgeon, and patient preference. We excluded patients with multiple and bilateral renal tumors, solitary kidney, or pathology not comparable with RCC. All these patients had received magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography before PN, per 3 months after surgery until 1 year, then biannually for 3 years, and then annually until the 5th year.

We recorded patients' demographics (age, gender, and body mass index), perioperative outcomes (console time, estimated blood loss [EBL], WIT, perioperative complications [classified by the Clavien–Dindo system], and length of hospitalization), and pathological features. We pursued trifecta outcomes in our study, namely surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes. Surgical outcomes are defined as complications, margin status, and WIT. Functional outcomes are defined as the deterioration of renal function. Oncological outcomes are defined as cancer-specific survival and radiographic progression-free survival. Renal function was assessed using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation for determining the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) on the day before the operation in the postoperative 1st month and in the postoperative 6th month. Changes in renal functions were recorded as the deterioration of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage and percentage changes in eGFR.

The width of parenchymal ischemia and resection was reported by the surgeon. RENAL and DAP scores were calculated according to previously reported protocols.[5],[7] The RENAL score is based on five components: R, radius; E, exophytic/endophytic; N, nearness; A, anterior/posterior; and L, location. The DAP score is based on three components: D, diameter; A, axial; and P, polar. The DAP components are scored as follows:

  1. (D) diameter: score1, <2.4 cm; score 2, 2.4–4.4 cm; scores 3, >4.4 cm
  2. (A) distance from the center of the kidney axis to the closest tumor edge: score 1, >1.5 cm; score 2, ≤1.5 cm; and score 3, tumor touching or overlapping the center of the kidney
  3. (P) distance from the kidney equatorial plane to the tumor edge: score 1, >2 cm; score 2, ≤2 cm; and score 3, tumor visible on the middle plane.


Based on total RENAL scores, the patients were divided into three groups: low risk, 4–6; intermediate risk, 7–9; and high risk, 10–12. Based on total DAP scores, the patients were divided into three groups: low risk, 3–4; intermediate risk, 5–6; and high risk, 7–9. Continuous variables are represented as mean ± standard deviation, and ordinal variables are represented as median (interquartile range). Spearman correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between DAP and RENAL scores as well as perioperative outcomes. Results of uni- and multivariate analyses of various clinical variables and changes in renal functions were evaluated using linear regression analysis. The predictability of DAP and RENAL scores for renal function was compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 22 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) with P < 0.05 considered to be statistically significant.


  Results Top


During the study period, 182 patients received RaPN. A total of 73 patients were excluded because of incomplete data or because they were not available or follow-up. In addition, one patient was excluded because the pathological examination showed a sarcomatoid component. Finally, 108 patients were enrolled in this study for the final analysis. The clinical and pathological characteristics of the 108 patients in this study are shown in [Table 1]. RENAL and DAP distributions and individual components are shown in [Table 2]. The relationships between RENAL and DAP scores and trifecta outcomes are also presented in [Table 2].
Table 1: Patients' clinical and pathological characteristics

Click here to view
Table 2: RENAL and DAP distributions for total score and the individual components

Click here to view


The median follow-up was 36 months. The 3-year cancer-specific survival rate for all patients was 98.4%. The 3-year radiographic progression-free survival rate was 95.2%.

Significant differences in operative time, console time, WIT, and EBL were observed among the three risk groups for RENAL (P < 0.001, <0.001, 0.003, and 0.024, respectively, Kruskal–Wallis test) and DAP (P < 0.001, <0.001, 0.001, and <0.001, respectively, Kruskal–Wallis test) scores [Table 3]. WIT in the low-risk group according to the RENAL score was significantly shorter than that in the intermediate- and high-risk groups (P = 0.03 and 0.01, respectively, Mann–Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction). No significant difference in WIT was observed between the low- and intermediate-risk groups for the DAP score (P = 0.10, Mann–Whitney U-test), but WIT was significantly lower in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group (P = 0.02, Mann–Whitney U-test). EBL in the high-risk group for the DAP score was significantly higher than that in the low- and intermediate-risk groups (P < 0.001, Mann–Whitney U-test).
Table 3: Relationship between RENAL and DAP scores and trifecta outcomes

Click here to view


The largest decrease of renal function from the preoperative period to postoperative 6th month was noted in the intermediate-risk group for the DAP score. In our study, the predictive value of long-term outcomes of the DAP score was not inferior to that of the RENAL score, including prediction for WIT in 25 min [area under the curve [AUC] of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.61 vs. 0.51, P = 0.34, [Figure 1], prediction for a positive margin [AUC of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.50 vs. 0.55, P = 0.08, [Figure 2], prediction for the 3-year radiographic local recurrence [AUC of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.55 vs. 0.55, P = 0.08, [Figure 3], prediction for complication [AUC of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.58 vs. 0.55, P = 0.06, [Figure 4], and prediction for the change in CKD status [AUC of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.54 vs. 0.48, P = 0.10, [Figure 5], but the prediction of WIT in 20 min was AUC of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.81 vs. 0.54, P = 0.03, [Figure 6]. Our study also demonstrated that age is an independent factor for the progression to CKD after RaPN [odds ratio = 1.054, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.008–1.102, P = 0.022, [Table 4]. Complications occurred in 22 patients (20.4%), and the most common postoperative complications were bleeding (12.2%), postoperative fever (0.5%), and urinary leakage (0.3%). No severe (≥ Grade 3) complications were noted in our cohort.
Figure 1: ROC analysis for warm ischemia time (WIT)> 25 minutes

Click here to view
Figure 2: ROC analysis for positive margin

Click here to view
Figure 3: ROC analysis for 3-year radiographic local

Click here to view
Figure 4: ROC analysis for complications

Click here to view
Figure 5: ROC analysis for chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage change

Click here to view
Figure 6: ROC analysis for warm ischemia time (WIT)> 20 minutes

Click here to view
Table 4: Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis for CKD progression

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


In the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 30904, PN decreased the incidence of at least moderate renal dysfunction (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2).[9] In some studies, PN has even contributed to better overall survival by reducing the incidence of sequelae of CKD and cardiovascular morbidity, which is compared to radical nephrectomy.[10] Therefore, nephrometry scores have become increasingly more important for the pre-NSS evaluation of SRM after 2009, not only as an aid for urological surgeons facing renal masses with borderline complexity but also as a standard reporting system for outcome comparisons.[4],[5] The first RaPN was reported in 2004,[11] and it was proven that RaPN is a safe and feasible technology for PN. Hung et al. also reported “trifecta” (surgical, oncological, and functional) outcomes as a gold standard in recent eras for PN.[12] However, current studies lack data regarding nephrometry scores that best predict the trifecta outcomes of RaPN in the Asian population, and our study provides the first trifecta outcome in RaPN based on the Taiwanese population.

The median WIT (34 min) was longer than the other PN series (mean: 19.2 min).[13] It may be caused by a larger tumor size or the conventional clamping technique used in our cohort.[12] In detail, before hilar occlusion, mannitol 12.5 g is given intravenously to aid renal protection by facilitating osmotic diuresis. Hilar clamping is performed using laparoscopic bulldog clamps. If bulldog clamps are used, the renal artery is clamped only in most of the cases. The hilum is occluded and the tumor is resected along the previously scored margin using cold scissors. Renorrhaphy is performed in two layers using one robotic needle driver. A 15 cm V-LOC suture (Medtronic Parkway, Minneapolis, MN, USA) with a knot and Hem-o-Lok clip (Teleflex Medical, Kenosha, WI, USA) was applied to the free end and used as a running suture of the tumor excision bed. Then, the laparoscopic bulldog clamp is unclamped and another mannitol 12.5 g is given intravenously. Godoy et al. found that WIT of 40 min appears to be an appropriate cutoff time for predicting postoperative renal impairment.[14] Furthermore, Thompson et al.[15] revealed 5% and 6% increases in the risk of acute renal failure and new-onset stage 4 CKD, respectively, for each 1 min increase in WIT and an optimal WIT cutoff of 25 min to help prevent renal function decline.[15] Therefore, we tested the predictive values of RENAL and DAP scores, respectively, for WIT in 20 and 25 min, which may be meaningful in long-term renal function follow-up. Moreover, our cohort demonstrates that the DAP score is superior to the RENAL score in predicting WIT in 20 min [Figure 6].

Although the definition of the safest width of a healthy renal margin to achieve oncological efficacy and the safest resection technique during PN continues to be widely debated, the resection technique in our cohort was a conventional standard resection. Minervini et al. presented a meta-analysis demonstrating that simple enucleation is not inferior to the standard method in terms of a positive surgical margin and local-regional recurrence in patients undergoing PN.[16] Only four patients (3.6%) had a positive surgical margin, and their DAP scores were 8, 4, 7, and 7. Hennessey et al. presented 3.2% of positive surgical margins in RaPN for complex renal lesions,[17] and our result is the same as that of Hennessey et al. The patient with four DAP scores exhibited the final pathology of a carcinoid tumor. Our study reports an equally powerful predictive value of the DAP score than that of the RENAL score for positive surgical margins [AUC of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.50 vs. 0.55, P = 0.08, [Figure 2]. The DAP score can improve the shortcomings of the relatively strict cutoff of a 7 cm distance and lax cutoff of a 4 cm distance in the RENAL score.[7] The result offers physicians useful information regarding a higher risk of local recurrence in the high-risk group for the DAP score, although the relationship between local recurrence and the positive surgical margin is still under debate.[18] The median time to local recurrence was 17 months (range: 3–18), which was shorter than that of the other series (23 months [range: 2–107]).[18]

In the largest single-center series to date, which consisted of 400 patients undergoing RaPN, a total of 11 cases (2.7%) of intraoperative complications and 61 cases (15.3%) of postoperative complications were reported, which were mainly low grade (Grades 3 and 4 in 3.2%).[13] A similar intraoperative complication rate was reported for our study. Blood loss of >500 mL was the only intraoperative complication (12 cases, 11.1%). A total of 10 cases (9.2%) of postoperative complications (neither Grade 3 nor Grade 4 complications) were noted. Therefore, neither the RENAL and DAP scores could predict the complication rate in our study. Compared with other studies, which showed that the nephrometry score can predict severe complication rates,[17],[19] our results may be due to selection bias or the nature of our database from a single experienced surgeon.[20]

Many studies have confirmed the benefits of PN in terms of improved renal function and overall survival.[9],[21],[22],[23] The basis of these improved outcomes is the preservation of functional nephron mass. Despite the obvious importance of this factor, it has not been extensively studied because of the challenges posed by the measurement of the functional volume change. Our study demonstrated that both the DAP and RENAL scores failed to predict the change in CKD status [AUC of DAP vs. RENAL = 0.54 vs. 0.48, P = 0.10, [Figure 5]. Wang et al. presented a different result for the DAP score as an independent factor for renal function reduction.[24] One explanation for our result is that the DAP and RENAL scores include not only the tumor size but also its position. Another reason for this insignificant result may be the relatively short follow-up period. However, our result demonstrated that age is an independent factor for progression to CKD after RaPN (odds ratio = 1.054, 95% CI = 1.008–1.102, P = 0.022). Thus, younger patients may have more benefit in renal function preservation than older patients, even for borderline complicated renal mass.

A comparison of RENAL, PADUA, C-index, and DAP scores from Germany indicated that the RENAL score correlates best with margin, ischemia, and complication (negative margin, ischemia time <20 min, and no Grade 3 or more severe complication) achievement in NSS. However, only 17 patients (9%) received RaPN. In addition, in the subgroup analysis of RaPN, no complication occurred in all the 17 patients that received RaPN, which is the same as that in our study.[8] No comparison of the four nephrometry scores above in the RaPN subgroup was made because of the relatively small sample size.

Although we chose the single-surgeon database to avoid intersurgeon bias, some limitations still existed in our cohort. First, the study was retrospective with a small number of cases and may need a more long-term follow-up period. Second, the mean tumor size (3.5 cm) was greater than that in other series of PN (mean 2.9 cm). Third, we assessed eGFR using the MDRD equation. For a more accurate estimation of renal function, renal scintigraphy should be used. Fourth, we considered ischemia time as a binary variable, which may have resulted in an interpretation error. We considered that every minute of cold ischemia time and WIT does not have the same weight in regression analysis.


  Conclusion Top


The DAP score is an easy and effective tool for predicting perioperative outcomes of RaPN, especially in WIT in 20 min.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, Jewett MA. Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med 2010;362:624-34.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol 2015;67:913-24.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Agarwal N, Bhayani S, Bro WP, Chang SS, et al. Kidney cancer, version 2.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017;15:804-34.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, Macchi V, Porzionato A, De Caro R, et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol 2009;56:786-93.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: A comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 2009;182:844-53.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Simmons MN, Ching CB, Samplaski MK, Park CH, Gill IS. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C index method. J Urol 2010;183:1708-13.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Simmons MN, Hillyer SP, Lee BH, Fergany AF, Kaouk J, Campbell SC. Diameter-axial-polar nephrometry: Integration and optimization of R.E.N.A.L. and centrality index scoring systems. J Urol 2012;188:384-90.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Borgmann H, Reiss AK, Kurosch M, Filmann N, Frees S, Mager R, et al. R.E.N.A.L. Score outperforms PADUA score, C-index and DAP score for outcome prediction of nephron sparing surgery in a selected cohort. J Urol 2016;196:664-71.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, Campbell S, Van Poppel H. Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: Results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol 2014;65:372-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Capitanio U, Terrone C, Antonelli A, Minervini A, Volpe A, Furlan M, et al. Nephron-sparing techniques independently decrease the risk of cardiovascular events relative to radical nephrectomy in patients with a T1a-T1b renal mass and normal preoperative renal function. Eur Urol 2015;67:683-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology 2004;64:914-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS. “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2013;189:36-42.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kaouk JH, Khalifeh A, Hillyer S, Haber GP, Stein RJ, Autorino R. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Step-by-step contemporary technique and surgical outcomes at a single high-volume institution. Eur Urol 2012;62:553-61.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Godoy G, Ramanathan V, Kanofsky JA, O'Malley RL, Tareen BU, Taneja SS, et al. Effect of warm ischemia time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy on early postoperative glomerular filtration rate. J Urol 2009;181:2438-43.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Thompson RH, Lane BR, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Fergany A, Frank I, et al. Renal function after partial nephrectomy: Effect of warm ischemia relative to quantity and quality of preserved kidney. Urology 2012;79:356-60.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Minervini A, Campi R, Sessa F, Derweesh I, Kaouk JH, Mari A, et al. Positive surgical margins and local recurrence after simple enucleation and standard partial nephrectomy for malignant renal tumors: Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prevalence. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017;69:523-38.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Hennessey DB, Wei G, Moon D, Kinnear N, Bolton DM, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Strategies for success: A multi-institutional study on robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal lesions. BJU Int 2018;121 Suppl 3:40-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Wood EL, Adibi M, Qiao W, Brandt J, Zhang M, Tamboli P, et al. Local tumor bed recurrence following partial nephrectomy in patients with small renal masses. J Urol 2018;199:393-400.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Kim SP, Campbell SC, Gill I, Lane BR, Van Poppel H, Smaldone MC, et al. Collaborative review of risk benefit trade-offs between partial and radical nephrectomy in the management of anatomically complex renal masses. Eur Urol 2017;72:64-75.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Patel MN, Krane LS, Bhandari A, Laungani RG, Shrivastava A, Siddiqui SA, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors larger than 4 cm. Eur Urol 2010;57:310-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Lane BR, Abouassaly R, Gao T, Weight CJ, Hernandez AV, Larson BT, et al. Active treatment of localized renal tumors may not impact overall survival in patients aged 75 years or older. Cancer 2010;116:3119-26.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Kwon ED, Cheville JC, et al. Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be associated with decreased overall survival compared with partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2008;179:468-71.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Weight CJ, Larson BT, Fergany AF, Gao T, Lane BR, Campbell SC, et al. Nephrectomy induced chronic renal insufficiency is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death and death from any cause in patients with localized cT1b renal masses. J Urol 2010;183:1317-23.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Wang L, Li M, Chen W, Wu Z, Cai C, Xiang C, et al. Is diameter-axial-polar scoring predictive of renal functional damage in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy? An evaluation using technetium Tc 99m (99 Tcm) diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid (DTPA) glomerular filtration rate. BJU Int 2013;111:1191-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed630    
    Printed57    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded99    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal