Search

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is a challenging procedure, which can be associated with severe complications. In consequence, the search for accurate and independent indicators of unfavorable surgical outcomes appears warranted. We aimed at evaluating the impact of frailty status on surgical, functional and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing PN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC).A retrospective, single-center study including 1,282 patients treated with PN for clinically localized cTOf 1,282 patients, 220 (17%) were frail. Overall, 982 (76%) vs. 123 (9.6%) vs. 171 (13%) patients underwent open vs. laparoscopic vs. robot-assisted PN. Median follow-up was 66 (IQR: 35-107) months. At MVA, frailty status predicted increased risk of complications [Odds ratio (OR): 1.46, 95%CI 1.17-1.84; P0.001]. Moreover, frail patients were at higher risk of postoperative AKI (OR: 1.95, 95%CI 1.13-3.35; P = 0.01). In frail patients, renal function permanently decreased over time (P = 0.01) without any renal function plateau or improvement during the follow-up, which were instead observed in the nonfrail cohort. At competing-risks analyses, frailty status predicted higher risk of other-cause mortality [Hazard ratio (HR): 1.67, 95%CI 1.05-2.66; P = 0.02], but not of cancer-specific mortality (P = 0.3).Frailty status predicts higher risk of adverse surgical outcomes after PN. Moreover, greater renal function decline was observed in frail patients, compared with nonfrail patients. Finally, the risk of OCM significantly overcomes the risk of dying due to RCC in frail patients.

Despite papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) subtype represents the second most common histological renal tumor, controversial findings have been shown regarding its prognosis. Thus, we investigated the natural history of patients harbouring pRCC, focusing on its clinicopathological characteristics and long-term oncologic outcomes among pRCC subtypes.We identified 447 patients treated with either partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) for pRCC at a single tertiary centre, between 1994 and 2019. First, we explored differences in baseline and clinicopathological characteristics. Second, Kaplan-Meier plots investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) differences among pRCC subtypes. Third, multivariable Cox-regression analyses (MVA) were used to assess predictors of clinical progression (CP) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM).Overall, 120 (27%) patients had symptoms at time of diagnosis. 263 (58.8%) vs. 184 (41.2%) patients underwent PN vs. RN. At histopathological evaluation, 243 (54.4%) harboured pRCC type I vs. 204 (45.6%) type II. pRCC type II more frequently showed higher tumor grade, tumor necrosis or lymphovascular invasion (all P0.001). After a median follow-up of 51 months, 2.5% and 11% of patients had local relapse and CP, respectively. Kaplan-Meier plots revealed 93 vs. 83% 5-year PFS (P0.001) and 96 vs. 89% 5-year CSS (P=0.01) for non-metastatic pRCC type I vs. II, respectively. At MVA, pRCC type II predicted higher risk of CP (Hazard ratio [HR]: 3.03, 95%CI 1.42-6.44; P=0.01), as well as of CSM (HR: 2.60, 95%CI 1.05-6.29; P=0.02), relative to pRCC type I.PRCC type II harbour more unfavorable tumor characteristics, such as higher tumor grade, more frequent tumor necrosis or lymphvascular invasion, which translates into worse long-term oncologic outcomes, compared with pRCC type I. Thus, patients harbouring pRCC type II may benefit from stricter follow-up, as well as earlier risk-based adjuvant therapies, based on potential worse oncologic outcomes in this patient population.