«Adherent Perinephric Fat»: a prognosis and influence of perioperative results of organ-sparing procedures in localized kidney parenchyma tumors


Cite item

Full Text

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

Abstract

The results of recently published articles on the etiology and pathogenesis of “Adherent Perinephric Fat” (APF) are presented in the review. The current possibilities for predicting the presence of APF based on clinical data and imaging methods are highlighted, as well as the to an influence of ARF on perioperative results of organ-sparing procedures using various surgical approaches in patients with localized kidney parenchyma tumors.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

A. E Syrota

FGAOU VO I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: sirota.nastya@list.ru
5-year student Moscow, Russia

L. M Rapoport

FGAOU VO I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: leonidrapoport@yandex.ru
MD, professor, Deputy Director on Medical care at the Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health Moscow, Russia

E. A Bezrukov

FGAOU VO I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: eabezrukov@rambler.ru
MD, professor at the Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health Moscow, Russian

D. G Tsarichenko

FGAOU VO I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: tsarichenkodg@yandex.ru
MD, professor at the Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health Moscow, Russian

E. S. Syrota

FGAOU VO I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: essirota@mail.ru
MD, urologist at the Urologic Clinic, Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health Moscow, Russian

S. V Vovdenko

FGAOU VO I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: vovdenkostanislav@yandex.ru
2-year resident at the Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health Moscow, Russian

Yu. G Alyaev

FGAOU VO I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: ugalyaev@mail.ru
corresponding member of RAS, MD, professor, Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health Moscow, Russian

References

  1. Аксель Е.М., Матвеев В.Б. Статистика злокачественных новообразований мочевых и мужских половых органов в России и странах бывшего СССР. Онкоурология. 2019;15(2):15-24
  2. Johnson D.C., Vukina J., Smith A.B. et al. Preoperatively misclassified, surgically removed benign renal masses: a systematic review of surgical series and United States population level burden estimate. J. Urol. 2015;193(1):30-35. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.102.
  3. Hollingsworth J.M., Miller D.C., Daignault S. et al. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J. National Cancer Institute. 2006;98(18):1331-1334. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj362.
  4. Hancock S.B., Georgiades C.S. Kidney Cancer. Cancer J. 2016;22(6):387- 392 doi: 10.1097/PP0.0000000000000225.
  5. Kane C.J., 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.
  6. Robson C.J., Churchill B.M., Anderson W. The results of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 1969;101(3):297-301.
  7. Sun M., Shariat S.F., Cheng C. et al. Prognostic factors and predictive models in renal cell carcinoma: a contemporary review. Eur. Urol. 2011;60(4):644-661. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.041.
  8. Van Poppel H., Da Pozzo L., Albrecht W. et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2011;59(4):543-552. Doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2010.12.013.
  9. 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.
  10. Wajchenberg B.L. Subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue: their relation to the metabolic syndrome. Endocrine reviews 2000;21(6):697-738. doi: 10.1210/edrv.21.6.0415.
  11. Mariman E.C., Wang P. Adipocyte extracellular matrix composition, dynamics and role in obesity. Cellular and molecular life sciences: CMLS. 2010;67(8):1277-1292. doi: 10.1007/s00018-010-0263-4.
  12. Trayhurn P., Wood I.S. Adipokines: inflammation and the pleiotropic role of white adipose tissue. The British journal of nutrition. 2004;92(3): 347-355.
  13. Adamczak M., Wiecek A. The adipose tissue as an endocrine organ. Seminars in nephrology. 2013;33(1):2-13. doi: 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2012.12.008.
  14. Marin P., Andersson B., Ottosson M. et al. The morphology and metabolism of intraabdominal adipose tissue in men. Metabolism: clinical and experimental. 1992;41(11):1242-1248. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(92)90016-4.
  15. Zhu Y., Wang H.K., Zhang H.L., et al. Visceral obesity and risk of high grade disease in clinical t1a renal cell carcinoma. The Journal of urology 2013;189(2):447-453. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.030.
  16. Monteiro R., Azevedo I. Chronic inflammation in obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Mediators of inflammation 2010;2010. doi: 10.1155/2010/289645.
  17. Neels J.G., Olefsky J.M. Inflamed fat: what starts the fire? J. Clin. Invest. 2006;116(1):33-35. doi: 10.1172/JCI27280.
  18. Timar O., Sestier F., Levy E. Metabolic syndrome X: a review. The Canadian journal of cardiology. 2000;16(6):779-789.
  19. White W.M., Derweesh I.H. Editorial comment. Urology 2013;81(6):1230- 1231. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.058.
  20. Bylund J.R., Qiong H., Crispen P.L., et al. Association of clinical and radiographic features with perinephric «sticky» fat. J. Endourol. 2013;27(3):370- 373. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0205.
  21. Davidiuk A.J., Parker A.S., Thomas C.S., et al. Mayo adhesive probability score: an accurate image-based scoring system to predict adherent perinephric fat in partial nephrectomy. Eur. Urol. 2014;66(6):1165-1171. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.054.
  22. Sun K., Tordjman J., Clement K., et al. Fibrosis and adipose tissue dysfunction. Cell metabolism, 2013; 18(4):470-477. Doi: 10.1016/j. cmet.2013.06.016.
  23. Dvorak H.F. Tumors: wounds that do not heal. Similarities between tumor stroma generation and wound healing. The New England journal of medicine 1986;315(26):1650-1659. Doi: 10.1056/ NEJM198612253152606.
  24. Lee S.M., Robertson I., Stonier T., et al. Contemporary outcomes and prediction of adherent perinephric fat at partial nephrectomy: a systematic review. Scand. J. Urol. 2017;51(6):429-434. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2017.1357656.
  25. Kocher N.J., Kunchala S., Reynolds C., et al. Adherent perinephric fat at minimally invasive partial nephrectomy is associated with adverse perioperative outcomes and malignant renal histology. BJU international 2016;117(4):636-641. doi: 10.1111/bju.13378.
  26. Zheng Y., Espiritu P., Hakky T., et al. Predicting ease of perinephric fat dissection at time of open partial nephrectomy using preoperative fat density characteristics. BJU international 2014; 114(6):872-880. doi: 10.1111/bju.12579.
  27. Macleod L.C., Hsi R.S., Gore J.L., et al. Perinephric fat thickness is an independent predictor of operative complexity during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. J. Endourol. 2014;28(5):587-591. Doi: 10.1089/ end.2013.0647.
  28. Khene Z.E., Peyronnet B., Mathieu R., et al. Analysis of the impact of adherent perirenal fat on peri-operative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy. World journal of urology 2015;33(11): 1801-1806. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1500-0.
  29. Kawamura N., Saito K., Inoue M., et al. Adherent Perinephric Fat in Asian Patients: Predictors and Impact on Perioperative Outcomes of Partial Nephrectomy. Urologia internationalis 2018; 101(4):437-442. doi: 10.1159/000494068.
  30. Dariane C., Le Guilchet T., Hurel S., et al. Prospective assessment and histological analysis of adherent perinephric fat in partial nephrectomies. Urologic oncology 2017;35(2):39 e9-39 e17. Doi: 10.1016/j. urolonc.2016.09.008.
  31. Ishiyama R., Kondo T., Takagi T., et al. Impact of the Mayo Adhesive Probability Score on the Complexity ofRobot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy. J. Endourol. 2018;32(10):928-933. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0779.
  32. Eisner B.H., Zargooshi J., Berger A.D., et al. Gender differences in subcutaneous and perirenal fat distribution. Surgical and radiologic anatomy: SRA 2010;32(9):879-882. doi: 10.1007/s00276-010-0692-7.
  33. Renehan A.G., Tyson M., Egger M., et al. Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet 2008;371(9612):569-578. Doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(08)60269-X.
  34. Aboumarzouk O.M., Stein R.J., Haber G.P., et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU international 2012; 110(9): 1244-1250. Doi: 10.1111/j. 1464-410X.2012.11094.x.
  35. Rogde A.J., Gudbrandsdottir G., Hjelle K.M., et al. Obesity is associated with an improved cancer-specific survival, but an increased rate of postoperative complications after surgery for renal cell carcinoma. Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology 2012;46(5):348-357. doi: 10.3109/00365599.2012.678382.
  36. Martin L., Rouviere O., Bezza R., et al. Mayo Adhesive Probability Score Is an Independent Computed Tomography Scan Predictor of Adherent Perinephric Fat in Open Partial Nephrectomy. Urology 2017;103:124- 128. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.11.043.
  37. Khene Z.E., Bensalah K., Largent A., et al. Role of quantitative computed tomography texture analysis in the prediction of adherent perinephric fat. World J. Urol. 2018;36(10):1635-1642. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2292-9.
  38. House M.G., Fong Y., Arnaoutakis D.J., et al. Preoperative predictors for complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: impact of BMI and body fat distribution. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2008; 12(2): 270-278. doi: 10.1007/s11605-007-0421-7.
  39. Kim S., Choi S.K., Lee S.M., et al. Predictive Value of Preoperative Unenhanced Computed Tomography During Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: A Single Institute’s Experience. Korean J. urol. 2013;54( 11) :772-777. doi: 10.4111/kju.2013.54.11.772.
  40. Thiel D.D., Davidiuk A.J., Meschia C., et al. Mayo Adhesive Probability Score Is Associated With Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma Progression-free Survival. Urology. 2016;89:54-60. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.10.034.
  41. Huang H., Chen S., Li W., et al. High perirenal fat thickness predicts a poor progression-free survival in patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Urologic oncology 2018;36(4):157 e1-57 e6. Doi: 10.1016/j. urolonc.2017.12.011.
  42. Bernstein A.P., Fram E.B., Sankin A., et al. A comparison of perinephric fat surface area and Mayo Adhesive Probability score in predicting malignancy in T1 renal masses. Urologic oncology 2018;36(11):499 e17-99 e22. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.07.018.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies