Long-term results of surgical treatment for stage cT1 kidney cancer

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access


Studied herein are the long-term results after surgical treatment of stage cT1 kidney cancer. The study includes 278 surgeries for kidney tumors. Partial nephrectomy was performed in 199 (71.6%) cases and radical nephrectomy in 79 (28.4%). Surgeries were performed using the open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. Surgical treatment and long-term oncological results were studied. Open approach for partial nephrectomy was used in 2.01% of cases, laparoscopic in 27.64%, and robotic in 70.34%; and radical nephrectomy in 2.53%, 87.34%, and 10.13%, respectively. Incidence postoperative complications after partial and radical nephrectomy were 16.58% and 3.8%, respectively. Сomplications (Clavien —Dindo ≥ 3) occurred in 11.56% and 3.8% cases, respectively. Positive surgical margin occurred after partial nephrectomy in 1.51%, whereas undetermined for radical nephrectomy. The 5-year disease-free survival for partial and radical nephrectomy was 94.98 ± 1.77% vs. 86.96% ± 4.11%; 5-year overall survival was 96.2% ± 1.55% vs. 88.15% ± 3.96%; 10-year overall survival was 90.82% ± 4.19% vs. 76.32 ± 6.1%; and 5-year cancer-specific survival was 99.16% ± 0.84% vs. 94.09% ± 2.87%, respectively. Our study demonstrates that partial nephrectomy is a safe and effective method for surgical treatment in stage cT1 kidney cancer. A minimally invasive approach is a priority. The nephron-sparring technique demonstrates superior long-term results compared with radical nephrectomy.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Sergey A. Rakul

City Hospital № 40; Military Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirov of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Email: 79119257502@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4898-8612

doctor of medical science

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; Saint Petersburg

Pavel N. Romashchenko

Military Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirov of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Email: romashchenko@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8918-1730
SPIN-code: 3850-1792

doctor of medical science, professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Kirill V. Pozdnyakov

City Hospital № 40

Author for correspondence.
Email: pozdnyakov_k.v@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7672-0299


Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Nikolay A. Maistrenko

Military Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirov of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Email: nik.m.47@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1405-7660
SPIN-code: 2571-9603

doctor of medical science, professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg


  1. Aksel’ EM, Matveev VB. Statistics of malignant tumors of urinary and male urogenital organs in Russia and the countries of the former USSR. Cancer Urology. 2019;15(2):15–24. doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-2019-15-2-15-24
  2. Kaprin AD, Starinskij VV, Petrova GV. Sostojanie onkologicheskoy pomoshi naseleniyu Rossii v 2017 godu. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gercena — filial FGBU "NMIRC" Minzdrava Rossii. 2018;236
  3. Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, et al. Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the national cancer data base. Cancer. 2008;113(1):78–83. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23518
  4. Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):913–24. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.005
  5. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, et al. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2017;198(3):520–529. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.100
  6. Kim SP, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, et al. Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012;188(1):51–57. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.026
  7. Capitanio U, Terrone C, Antonelli A, 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(4):683–689. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.027
  8. Wang DC, Plante K, Stewart T, et al. Comparison of survival for partial vs. radical nephrectomy in young patients with T1a renal cell carcinoma treated at commission on cancer-accredited facilities and influence of comorbidities on treatment choice. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(11):660.e9–660.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.06.056
  9. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, et al. Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(11):1296–1305. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041031
  10. Rakul CA, Romashchenko PN, Pozdnyakov KV, et al. Minimally invasive technologies for surgical treatment of kidney cancer. Grekov’s Bulletin of Surgery. 2020;179(6):34–43. doi: 10.24884/0042-4625-2020-179-6-34-43
  11. Cacciamani GE, Medina LG, Gill T, et al. Impact of surgical factors on robotic partial nephrectomy outcomes: comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2018;200(2):258–274. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.086
  12. Hjelle KM, Johannesen TB, Bostad L, et al. National Norwegian practice patterns for surgical treatment of kidney cancer tumors ≤ 7cm: adherence to changes in guidelines may improve overall survival. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(3):252–261. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.001
  13. Mari A, Di Maida F, Brunocilla E, et al. A snapshot of nephron sparing surgery in Italy: a prospective, multicenter report on clinical and operative data (the record 2 project). European Urology Supplements. 2019;18(9):e3158–e3359. doi: 10.1016/S1569-9056(19)33486-4
  14. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien – Dindo classification of surgical complications: five year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–196. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
  15. 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(3):844–853. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035
  16. Gershman B, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, et al. Radical Versus Partial Nephrectomy for cT1 Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2018;74(6):825–832. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.028
  17. Furukawa J, Ka nayama H, Azuma H, et al. "Trifecta@ outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a large Japanese multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;25(2):347–353. doi: 10.1007/s10147-019-01565-0
  18. Connor J, Doppalapudi S, Wajswol E, et al. Postoperative complications after robotic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2020;34(1):42–47. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0434
  19. Hadjipavlou M, Khan F, Fowler S, et al. Partial vs radical nephrectomy for T1 renal tumors: an analysis from the British association of urological surgeons nephrectomy audit. BJU Int. 2016;117(1):62–71. doi: 10.1111/bju.13114
  20. Janssen M, Linxweiler J, Terwey S, et al. Survival outcomes in patients with large (≥ 7cm) clear cell renal cell carcinomas treated with nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: results of a multicenter cohort with long-term follow-up. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196427. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196427
  21. Hamilton ZA, Capitanio U, Pruthi D, et al. Risk factors for upstaging, recurrence, and mortality in clinical T1-2 renal cell carcinoma patients upstaged to pT3a disease: an international analysis utilizing the 8th edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging criteria. Urology. 2020;138:60–68. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.036
  22. Bertolo R, Garisto J, Dagenais J, et al. Transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with minimum follow-up of 5-years: oncological and functional outcomes from a single institution. Eur Oncol. 2019;2(2):207–213. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.06.012
  23. Cai Y, Li HZ, Zhang YS, et al. Comparison of partial and radical laparoscopic nephrectomy: long-term outcomes for clinical T1b renal cell carcinoma. Urol J. 2018;15(2):16–20. doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.3913
  24. Koo KC, Kim JC, Cho KS, et al. Oncological outcomes after partial vs radical nephrectomy in renal cell carcinomas of ≤ 7 cm with presumed renal sinus fat invasion on preoperative imaging. BJU Int. 2016;117(1):87–93. doi: 10.1111/bju.12893
  25. Beauval JB, Peyronnet B, Benoit T, et al. Long-term oncological outcomes after robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a prospective multicentre study. World J Urol. 2018;36(6):897–904. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2208-8
  26. Jang HA, Kim JW, Byun SS, et al. Oncologic and Functional Outcomes after Partial Nephrectomy Versus Radical Nephrectomy in T1b Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Matched Case-Control Study in Korean Patients. Cancer Res Treat. 2016;48(2):612–620. doi: 10.4143/crt.2014.122

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
1. Fig. 1. Overall survival of patients with T1M0N0 kidney cancer who underwent PN or RN

Download (245KB)
2. Fig. 2. Disease-free survival of patients with T10M0N0 kidney cancer who underwent PN or radical nephrectomy RN

Download (223KB)
3. Fig. 3. Cancer-specific survival for patients with T10M0N0 kidney cancer who underwent PN or radical nephrectomy RN

Download (216KB)

Copyright (c) 2021 Rakul S.A., Romashchenko P.N., Pozdnyakov K.V., Maistrenko N.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies