Assessing performance trends in laparoscopic nephrectomy and nephron-sparing surgery for localized renal tumors
Marc C Smaldone1, Alexander Kutikov, Brian Egleston
1Division of Urological Oncology, Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA.
Objective:
To assess the impact of laparoscopy on usage of partial nephrectomy (PN) by comparing national usage trends in patients undergoing surgery for localized renal tumors.
Methods:
Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we retrospectively examined trends in procedure usage from 1995 to 2007 for patients undergoing surgery for localized (stage I/II) renal masses. Procedures were classified as open radical nephrectomy (ORN), laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN), open partial nephrectomy (OPN), and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Patients were further stratified by tumor size (≤4 cm, >4- ≤7 cm, >7 cm). Data were primarily analyzed using logistic regressions.
Results:
Patients (n = 11,689, mean age 74.4 ± 5.7 years, 56% male) with a mean tumor size of 4.7 ± 3.3 cm met the inclusion criteria. From 1995 to 2007, ORN rates decreased and for each year successive year patients were more likely to be treated with OPN (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.19), LRN (OR 1.44, CI 1.41-1.47), and LPN (OR 1.75, CI 1.68-1.83). Although the increased usage of OPN (7.5% vs 13.6%, P < .001) and LPN (0% vs 14.2%, P < .001) reached statistical significance, this was offset by a marked increase in LRN over the same time period (3.0% vs 43.0%, P < .001).
Conclusion:
Despite increasing emphasis on nephron preservation, PN usage rates remain low. Compared with a 40% increase in LRN, use of PN increased by only 20% from 1995 to 2007. As a result, 72% of identified Medicare beneficiaries with localized tumors were managed with radical nephrectomy (RN) in 2007. The trade-off of minimally invasive surgery for nephron preservation may have adverse long-term consequences.
