Are renal tumour scoring systems better than clinical judgement at predicting partial nephrectomy complexity?

Authors

  • Ravi M. Kumar Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Luke T. Lavallée 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  • Darren Desantis Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Sonya Cnossen Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  • Ranjeeta Mallick Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  • Ilias Cagiannos Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Chris Morash Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • Rodney H. Breau 1.Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 2.Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4228

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to determine how renal tumour scoring systems, such as RENAL, PADUA, and Centrality (C)-index, compare to clinical judgement at predicting time required for tumour removal and kidney reconstruction during partial nephrectomy.

Methods: A consecutive cohort of partial nephrectomy patients treated at The Ottawa Hospital, a tertiary care uro-oncological centre, was retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative axial images were reviewed by four experienced urological oncologists who independently rated the complexity of a partial nephrectomy from 1‒10 to generate a clinical judgement score. Two independent reviewers determined the RENAL, PADUA, and C-index scores. The time to complete tumour resection and renal reconstruction during partial nephrectomy was prospectively recorded.

Results: During the study period, 104 partial nephrectomies were performed. The mean partial nephrectomy complexity score based on clinical judgement was 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 2.1) out of 10. There was good agreement between surgeons in assessing tumour complexity (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65, 0.78). The mean RENAL score was 6.7 (SD 1.6) out of a maximum of 12, the mean PADUA score was 8.5 (SD 1.5) out of a maximum of 14, and the mean C-index score was 3.8 (SD 2). Mean resection and reconstruction time was 24 minutes (SD 10 minutes). The correlation between clinical judgement score and time was 0.27 (p=0.005). The correlation between renal tumour scoring systems and time was 0.20 (p=0.04) for RENAL, 0.21 (p=0.03) for C-index, and 0.26 (p=0.007) for PADUA. RENAL and PADUA scores were significantly associated with surgical and total complications.

Conclusions: The majority of variance in ischemia time is not explained by clinical judgement or renal tumour scoring systems. Renal tumour scoring systems were not better than the clinical judgement of urological oncologists at predicting ischemia time during partial nephrectomy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2017-06-13

How to Cite

Kumar, R. M., Lavallée, L. T., Desantis, D., Cnossen, S., Mallick, R., Cagiannos, I., Morash, C., & Breau, R. H. (2017). Are renal tumour scoring systems better than clinical judgement at predicting partial nephrectomy complexity?. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 11(6), 199–203. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4228

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 6 (2017): CUAJ June

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.