Predicting Strict Trifecta Outcomes after Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Comparison of RENAL, PADUA, and C-Index Scores

Main Article Content

Kaan Karamık
Yasin Aktaş
Ahmet Gürkan Erdemir
Ekrem İslamoğlu
Mahmut Taha Ölçücü
Çağatay Özsoy
Murat Savaş
Mutlu Ateş

Keywords

C-index, PADUA, partial nephrectomy, RENAL, Trifecta

Abstract

Nephrometry scores are designed to characterize tumors and stratify the surgical complexity. It remains unclear as to which nephrometry score can accurately predict the surgical outcomes. We aimed to assess the utility of radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness, anterior/posterior, location (RENAL), preoperative aspects and dimensions used for anatomic classifications (PADUA), and centrality index (C-index) nephrometry scores for predicting the strict Trifecta achievement from a single institution series robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). We retrospectively identified the prospectively maintained robotic surgery database records of 91 patients who underwent RAPN between June 2015 and September 2020 in Antalya Training and Research Hospital. The main outcome of the study was the achievement of strict Trifecta (negative surgical margin, no major urologic complications, warm ischemia time ≤25 min, and ≥85% preservation of estimated glomerular filtration rate). A multivariable analysis was performed to identify the factors of strict Trifecta success. The mean patient age was 55.82 ± 13.37 years with a median clinical tumor size of 3.5 cm (IQR 2.5–4.9). The median RENAL, PADUA, and C-index score were 7(IQR 6–8), 8(IQR 7–10), and 2.01(IQR 1.64–2.72), respectively. A strict Trifecta could be achieved in 54 patients (59.3%). Clinical tumor size (P = 0.011), RENAL risk groups (low:reference; intermediate; P = 0.040; high; P = 0.009), PADUA risk groups (low:reference; intermediate; P = 0.044; high; P = 0.001) and C-index risk groups (low:reference; high; P = 0.015) were the independent predictors of strict Trifecta attainment in the multivariate analysis. None of the nephrometry scores were a superior predictor compared to other nephrometry scores in comparative analysis. RENAL, PADUA, and C-index scores were all independent predictors of a strict Trifecta achievement. Our comprehensive comparison of the three scores identified that none of the nephrometry scores proved to be inferior to others nephrometry scores.

Abstract 189 | PDF Downloads 66 HTML Downloads 26 XML Downloads 26

References

1. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck BK. Rising incidence of small renal masses: A need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep;98(18):1331–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj362
2. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, Bensalah K, Dabestani S, Fernández-Pello S, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: The 2019 update. Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):799–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.011
3. Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Torres VE, Zincke H. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000 Dec;75(12):1236–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.4065/75.12.1236
4. Leow JJ, Heah NH, Chang SL, Chong YL, Png KS. Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: An updated meta-analysis of 4,919 patients. J Urol. 2016 Nov;196(5):1371–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.011
5. Hung AJ, Cai J, Simmons MN, Gill IS. “Trifecta” in partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):36–42. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.042
6. Kim DK, Kim LH, Raheem AA, Shin TY, Alabdulaali I, Yoon  YE, et al. Comparison of Trifecta and pentafecta outcomes between T1a and T1b renal masses following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with minimum one year follow up: Can RAPN for T1b renal masses be feasible? PLoS One. 2016 Mar;11(3):e0151738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151738
7. Furukawa J, Kanayama H, Azuma H, Inoue K, Kobayashi Y, Kashiwagi A, et al. “Trifecta” outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A large Japanese multicenter study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb;25(2):347–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10147-019-01565-0
8. Sharma AP, Mavuduru RS, Bora GS, Devana SK, Palani K, Lal  A, et al. Comparison of RENAL, PADUA, and C-index scoring systems in predicting perioperative outcomes after nephron sparing surgery. Indian J Urol. 2018 Jan-Mar;34(1):51–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/iju.IJU_247_17
9. Tufek I, Mourmouris P, Doganca T, Obek C, Argun OB, Tuna MB, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for T1b tumors: Strict Trifecta outcomes. JSLS. 2017 Jan-Mar; 21(1):e2016.00113. http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00113
10. Demirdag C, Citgez S, Gevher F, Simsekoglu F, Yalcin V. Trifecta outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for T1a and T1b renal tumors: A single-center experience in a tertiary care insti-tution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 Jun;29(6):790–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0756
11. 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 Sep;182(3):844–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035
12. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, Macchi V, Porzionato A, De  Caro R et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. 2009 Nov;56(5):786–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.040
13. Simmons MN, Ching CB, Samplaski MK, Park CH, Gill IS. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C index method. J Urol. 2010 May;183(5):1708–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.005
14. Borgmann H, Reiss AK, Kurosch M, Filmann N, Frees S, Mager R, et al. R.E.N.A.L. Score outperforms PADUA score, C-index and DAP score for outcome prediction of nephron sparing surgery in a selected cohort. J Urol. 2016 Sep;196(3):664–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.176
15. Sugiura M, Suyama T, Kanesaka M, Fujimoto A, Hou K, Araki K, et al. Usefulness of R.E.N.A.L Nephrometry Scoring System and centrality index score for predicting outcome of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Oct;26(10):784–8.
16. Karamık K, I˙slamog˘lu E, Erdemir AG, Erol I˙, Yıldız A, Anıl H, et al. The associations of RENAL, PADUA and C-index nephrometry scores with perioperative outcomes and postoperative renal function in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Turk J Urol. 2021 Jan;47(1):14–21.
17. Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer SP, Laydner H, Eyraud  R, Panumatrassamee K, et al. Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: A single surgeon experience. J Urol. 2013 Apr;189(4):1236–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.021
18. Kang M, Gong IH, Park HJ, Sung HH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, et al. Predictive factors for achieving superior pentafecta outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. J Endourol. 2017 Dec;31(12):1231–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0369
19. Castilho TML, Lemos GC, Cha JD, Colombo JR, Claros OR, Lemos MB, et al. Transition from open partial nephrectomy directly to robotic surgery: Experience of a single surgeon to achieve “TRIFECTA”. Int Braz J Urol. 2020 Sep-Oct; 46(5):814– 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0101
20. Acar Ö, Is¸ık EÖ, Mut T, Sag˘lıcan Y, Onay A, Vural M, et al. Comparison of the trifecta outcomes of robotic and open nephron-sparing surgeries performed in the robotic era of a single institution. SpringerPlus. 2015 Sep;4(1):472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1450-4
21. Mehra K, Manikandan R, Dorairajan LN, Sreerag S, Jain A, Bokka SH. Trifecta outcomes in open, laparoscopy or robotic partial nephrectomy: Does the surgical approach matter? J Kidney Cancer VHL. 2019 May;6(1):8–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.15586/jkcvhl.2019.115
22. Zargar H, Allaf ME, Bhayani S, Stifelman M, Rogers C, Ball MW, et al. Trifecta and optimal perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in surgical treatment of small renal masses: A multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2015 Sep;116(3):407–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.12933
23. Crockett MG, Giona S, Whiting D, Whitehurst L, Agag A, Malki M, et al. Nephrometry scores: A validation of three systems for perioperative outcomes in retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 2021;128(1):36–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15262
24. Egen L, Kowalewski KF, Riffel P, Honeck P, Kriegmair MC. Nephrometry scores: Can preoperative assessment of sectional imaging really mirror intraoperative renal tumor anatomy? Urol Int. 2021;105(1–2):108–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000510684
25. Khene ZE, Peyronnet B, Freton L, Graffeille V, Pradere B, Robert C, et al. What is better for predicting morbidity of robotic partial nephrectomy – a score or your clinical judgement? Eur Urol Focus. 2020 Mar;6(2):313–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.10.016
26. Osaka K, Makiyama K, Nakaigawa N, Yao M. Predictors of trifecta outcomes in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for clinical T1a renal masses. Int J Urol. 2015 Nov;22(11):1000–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iju.12893
27. Harke NN, Mandel P, Witt JH, Wagner C, Panic A, Boy  A, et al. Are there limits of robotic partial nephrectomy? TRIFECTA outcomes of open and robotic partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2018 Jul;118(1):206–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.25103
28. Ubrig B, Roosen A, Wagner C, Trabs G, Schiefelbein F, Witt JH, et al. Tumor complexity and the impact on MIC and trifecta in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: A multi-center study of over 500 cases. World J Urol. 2018 May;36(5):783–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2191-0