Nephron-sparing surgery is superior to radical nephrectomy in preserving renal function benefit even when expanding indications beyond the traditional 4-cm cutoff.

Objectives To analyze to what extent partial nephrectomy (PN) is superior to radical nephrectomy (RN) in preserving renal function outcome in relation to tumor size indication. Methods and materials Clinical data from 973 patients operated at 9 academic institutions were retrospectively analyzed. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) before and after surgery was calculated with the abbreviated Modification of the Diet in Renal Disease equation. For a fair comparison between the 2 techniques, all imperative indications for PN were excluded. A shift to a less favorable GFR group following surgery was considered clinically significant. Results Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (19–91). Tumor size was smaller than 4 cm in 665 (68.3%) cases and larger than 4 cm in 308 (31.7%) cases. PN and RN were performed in 663 (68.1%) and 310 (31.9%) patients, respectively. In univariate analysis, patients undergoing PN had a smaller risk for developing significant GFR change following surgery than those undergoing RN did. This was true for tumors≤4 cm ( P = 0.0001) and for tumors>4 cm ( P = 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, the following criteria were independent predictive factors for developing significant postoperative GFR loss: the use of RN ( P = 0.0001), preoperative GFR<60 ml/min ( P = 0.0001), tumor size≥4 cm ( P = 0.0001), and older age at diagnosis ( P = 0.0001). Conclusions The renal function benefit carried out by elective PN over RN persists even when expanding nephron-sparing surgery indications beyond the traditional 4-cm cutoff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]