Original StudyImpact of Accidental Tumor Incision During Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy on the Oncologic and Clinical Outcomes
Introduction
In the last 2 decades, partial nephrectomy (PN) has emerged as an oncologically equivalent treatment1 to radical nephrectomy in most cases of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in terms of the cancer-specific survival2, 3 and overall survival.3 Therefore, initially open and later on laparoscopic PN (LPN) has been widely accepted as one of the standard treatment options for these tumors.4, 5, 6 With improvements of the surgical devices, laparoscopic surgeries have resulted in improved visualization of the resection margin. In turn, this contributes to the decision regarding the optimal surgical incision line for removing the tumor completely with appropriate surgical margins. Although complete tumor removal is an oncologic principle of paramount importance, inappropriate surgical incisions are still observed in the clinical field, and may lead to accidental tumor incision (ATI) and pathologically positive surgical margin (PSM), and consequently to eventually residual malignancy induced by the incomplete resection.
A complete resection of the renal mass, avoiding ATI and PSM, along with the potential risks of disseminated cancer cells such as port site metastasis, tumor seeding, and local tumor recurrence, is essential in LPN. Previous reports showed that the factors related to tumor seeding and port site metastases can be divided into three categories, namely tumor-, wound-, and operation-related factors7, 8; among these, the most significant issue has been reported to be the surgical technique used.7 Curet showed that tumor manipulation increased the risk of tumor metastasis in both open and laparoscopic surgeries.7 Additionally, some previous studies have suggested that avoidance of tumor boundary violation and traumatic manipulation were important to prevent urologic tumor seeding and port site metastasis.8, 9 Furthermore, a previous animal model indicated that crushing of a subcapsular splenic tumor during laparoscopic exploration increased the incidence of port site metastasis.10 Therefore, it has been well established that the tumor boundaries must be respected in order to perform oncologically safe procedures and that traumatic tumor manipulation should be avoided during surgery to prevent dissemination of cancer cells.7, 8, 9 Recently, the impact of PSM in RCC during laparoscopic surgery on the treatment outcomes, including tumor recurrence, has been well-evaluated, and several reports have indicated that there is no large clinical impact of PSM11, 12, 13; however, a few reports have indicated that PSM might correlate with tumoral recurrence in high-grade tumors.14 On the other hand, the impact of ATI during LPN has not been fully investigated, even though, principally, ATI is considered to be associated with a potential risk of disseminated cancer cells during surgery.
In the present study, we aimed to investigate the risks of port site metastasis, tumor seeding, local recurrence, and cancer-specific survival in patients with ATI, and to reveal the impact of ATI on the treatment outcomes of LPN. Furthermore, we attempted to determine the predictive factors for the occurrence of ATI during LPN.
Section snippets
Patients
Consecutive 156 patients with renal tumors suspicious of RCC cT1aN0M0, undergoing LPN at Yokohama City University between May 2003 and November 2014 were retrospectively evaluated. The minimum postoperative follow-up period was 6 months. All cases were treated by a single surgeon (M.K.).
According to the criteria applied in our hospital for selecting the surgical method for RCC, the main indication for LPN (including the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches) is RCC cT1N0M0. The choice
Patients' Backgrounds
The patients' backgrounds and tumoral factors are shown in Table 1. Among enrolled 156 procedures, 12 (7.7%) showed ATI during surgery. The maximum tumor diameter was significantly larger in the ATI group (28.67 ± 9.25 mm) than in the non-ATI group (23.90 ± 7.89 mm; P = .049). No difference was observed in the tumor location between the ATI and non-ATI groups.
Histological Findings
Among 156 procedures, 132 showed malignant pathological findings, while the remaining 24 showed non-malignancy (including oncocytoma in 7
Discussion
The gold standard treatment for small renal masses is surgical removal with preservation of the remaining kidney whenever technically feasible.4, 5, 6, 17 Advances in the technology in recent years has led to effective minimally invasive surgical approaches for renal tumor excision being developed, including LPN. Considering the principles of oncological treatment, traumatic manipulation of tumors should be carefully avoided during laparoscopic surgery,7, 8 and it can be speculated that ATI
Conclusion
We aimed to investigate the impact of ATI on the oncologic and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and to determine the predictive factors for ATI. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies on this topic, and we here, for the first time, report that the risk of ATI is influenced by the presence of a pseudocapsule, and, to some degree, by the tumor size. Moreover, we also show that ATI during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is not necessarily associated with poor
Disclosure
The authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest.
References (32)
- 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) - et al.
Nephrectomy induced chronic renal insufficiency is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death and death from any cause in patients with localized cT1b renal masses
J Urol
(2010) - et al.
EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update
Eur Urol
(2015) - et al.
Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients
Eur Urol
(2009) - et al.
Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass
J Urol
(2009) Port site metastases
Am J Surg
(2004)- et al.
Port site metastasis and tumor seeding in oncologic laparoscopic urology
Urology
(2008) - et al.
Port site metastases in urological laparoscopic surgery
J Urol
(2003) - et al.
Positive surgical margins at partial nephrectomy: predictors and oncological outcomes
J Urol
(2008) - et al.
Positive surgical margins with renal cell carcinoma have a limited influence on long-term oncological outcomes of nephron sparing surgery
Urology
(2010)
Positive surgical margins after nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: incidence, clinical impact, and management
Clin Genitourin Cancer
The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth
J Urol
Morbidity and clinical outcome of nephron-sparing surgery in relation to tumour size and indication
Eur Urol
Oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for urological malignancy: experience with more than 1,000 operations
J Urol
Tumor seeding in urological laparoscopy: an international survey
J Urol
Incidence of local and port site recurrence of urologic cancer after laparoscopic surgery
Urology
Cited by (14)
Peritoneal carcinomatosis after partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Our experience and literature review
2022, Actas Urologicas EspanolasEvaluation of Tumor Pseudocapsule Status and its Prognostic Significance in Renal Cell Carcinoma
2018, Journal of UrologyCitation Excerpt :An absent PS carried a double unfavorable risk or more than grade 0. Therefore, PS absence not only causes inconvenience in surgery17 but is also associated with almost the poorest clinical outcome. In addition, in our study females had more “bare” tumors.
Analysis of trifecta outcomes in a single center with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for T1b renal tumors
2023, Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery