Lee CH, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Sep;39:e293. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e293

To compare the outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) with those of open PN (OPN) in patients with highly complex renal tumors defined as RENAL nephrometry score ≥ 10 We analyzed clinical data from a total of 149 patients who underwent OPN or RPN for a highly complex renal mass at our institution between 2003 and 2017. Perioperative data, complication profiles, functional outcomes, pathologic variables, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated in both groups. The median (interquartile range, IQR) patient age was 52.0 (42.0–59.0) years, and the median (IQR) follow-up period was 30.0 (7.0–54.0) months. Among the patients, 64 (43.0%) and 85 (57.0%) underwent OPN and RPN, respectively. The RPN group showed higher rates of clinical T1b and ≥ T2 than the OPN group (p = 0.019). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative outcomes such as operation time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time, and transfusion. Notably, the RPN group showed significantly shorter length of hospital stay than the OPN group (p < 0.001). Regarding the complication profiles and renal functional outcomes, no significant differences were reported between the groups. The estimated glomerular filtration rate decline from baseline at the last follow-up showed no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.351). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis also showed no significant differences in survival outcomes between the groups (log-rank test, all p > 0.05). RPN performed in patients with highly complex renal tumors offers perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes comparable to those associated with OPN.

Pham DM, et al. Investig Clin Urol. 2020 Jul;61(4):405-410. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2020.61.4.405

Objectives: The optimal treatment strategy for metastatic non‐clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mNCCRCC) is still elusive and mainly extrapolated from evidence available for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The aim of the study was therefore to investigate the survival outcomes and prognostic factors affecting survival in patients with mNCCRCC treated with targeted therapy.Materials and methods: We analyzed a total of 156 patients (8.1%) with mNCCRCC among the total cohort of 1922 patients in the Korean metastatic RCC registry. We used Kaplan‐Meier curve analysis to calculate the survival estimates for first‐line progression‐free survival (PFS), total PFS, and cancer‐specific survival (CSS). We also used the log‐rank test to compare the different groups and multivariate Cox‐proportional hazard regression analyses to evaluate the prognostic factors for survival.Results: The mNCCRCC group had significantly inferior survival outcomes in terms of first‐line PFS, total PFS, and CSS (all P < 0.05). We found survival benefits in patients treated with first‐line vascular endothelial growth factor‐tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF‐TKIs, first‐line PFS, and total PFS, all P < 0.05), cytoreductive nephrectomy (CSS, P < 0.0001), metastasectomy (CSS, P = 0.0017), and patients with metachronous metastasis (first‐line PFS, total PFS, and CSS, all P < 0.05). Liver metastasis was the only significant prognostic factor for both first‐line PFS and CSS (all P < 0.05).Conclusions: In the current targeted therapy era, survival of mNCCRCC is still inferior in comparison with that of mCCRCC patients. We found survival benefits in patients treated with first‐line VEGF‐TKIs/CN/metastasectomy, and metachronous metastasis patients.