Kidney CancerHistopathologic Analysis of Peritumoral Pseudocapsule and Surgical Margin Status after Tumor Enucleation for Renal Cell Carcinoma
Introduction
Nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) has been widely accepted since the early 1980s [1], [2] as an elective procedure for treating single sporadic renal tumors. Several studies have shown this procedure to offer equally effective local control and a similar disease-specific survival rate compared to radical nephrectomy (RN) for treating renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors of <4 cm in their greatest dimension [1], [2], [3], [4]. Moreover, recent reports have shown that NSS achieves local tumor control equivalent to RN also for RCC of 4–7 cm [5], [6].
The concern about local recurrence due to inadequate tumor excision and the reported risk of pseudocapsule (PS) invasion on the parenchymal side [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] led most surgeons to remove a minimal rim of normal-appearing parenchyma around the tumor, and at present this is considered to be the technique of choice in patients undergoing NSS [1], [2]. Nevertheless, in recent years there have been several reports on the reduction of the thickness of the safety margins that should be excised with the tumor to avoid the risk of local recurrence. Others have recently gone further, concluding that, if the tumor is completely excised, the width of the resection margin is irrelevant and not correlated with disease progression, thus providing an intriguing insight into the real need to excise an adequate rim of healthy kidney tissue around the tumor [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].
The tumor enucleation (TE) technique, which consists of excising the tumor by blunt dissection without a visible rim of normal parenchyma, has been reported in the treatment of benign-looking tumors such as angiomyolipomas. But only a few studies in the 1980s and early 1990s reported on the use of this technique for treating small RCC tumors, and they showed similar 5-yr survival rates to those of partial nephrectomy [16], [17], [18], [19]. Recently, other retrospective analyses confirmed that TE can be safely used for treating pT1a–pT1b RCC tumors, and it is not associated with any greater risk of local recurrence than is partial nephrectomy [20], [21], [22], [23]. Therefore, the discrepancy between the optimal oncologic results of in vivo TE reported in several recent retrospective analyses [20], [21], [22], [23] and the pathologic concerns of incomplete tumor excision based on data obtained by studies after an ex vivo TE or tumor sections of RN specimens remains an unsolved oncologic issue in conservative kidney surgery [8], [9], [10], [11].
The objective of this prospective study was to investigate the existence, integrity, possible invasion of peritumoral PS and surgical margin (SM) status after NSS, performed as TE for the treatment of RCC, with the aim of characterizing PS in RCC and defining the real need to take a rim of healthy parenchyma around the tumor to avoid the risk of a positive SM.
Section snippets
Methods
Between September 2006 and December 2007, data were gathered prospectively from 187 consecutive patients who had kidney surgery. Overall, 104 (55.6%) had a conservative treatment, TE, while 83 (44.4%) had RN. All but one NSS were successful; in one case with imperative indications for a 4-cm tumor, we decided to convert to RN for the intraoperative detection of intrarenal vein thrombosis after TE. The pathologic evaluation in this case confirmed the presence of renal vein thrombosis (pT3b). No
Results
At diagnosis, 87 of the 104 tumors (84%) were detected incidentally in asymptomatic patients while 17 (16%) were associated with either microscopic or frank hematuria with or without flank pain. Overall, 95 patients were treated with elective TE (91%) while 9 patients received TE for imperative indications (9%).
All patients with histologically confirmed RCC were eligible for the study (90/104, 86.5%), and the 14 who had NSS for histologically confirmed benign tumors were excluded (13.5%). At CT
Discussion
To avoid the risk of local recurrence, the excision of a minimal and visible margin of normal-appearing parenchyma around the tumor is considered the standard surgical technique of NSS [2].
Nevertheless, whether or not to excise a rim of healthy parenchyma, theoretically necessary to avoid the risk of a positive SM and local recurrence, is a matter of great controversy, and recent reports concluded that the width of the resection margins does not correlate with disease progression and that if
Conclusions
The PS can be infiltrated with or without invasion beyond it in patients undergoing conservative surgery, and the risk of PS invasion is statistically associated with clinical and pathologic tumor dimensions and nuclear grade. If there is PS penetration and invasion beyond it, the presence of a thin layer of parenchymal tissue allows for negative SM even if no efforts are made to leave a rim of healthy kidney tissue around the neoplasm. Our data clearly represent a rationale for adopting the TE
References (29)
- et al.
Renal cell carcinoma guideline
Eur Urol
(2007) - et al.
Nephron-sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes
J Urol
(2001) - et al.
Elective nephron sparing surgery should become standard treatment for small unilateral renal cell carcinoma: long-term survival data of 216 patients
Eur Urol
(2006) - et al.
Nephron-sparing surgery: current developments and controversies
Eur Urol
(2007) - et al.
Nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy in the treatment of intracapsular renal cell carcinoma up to 7 cm
Eur Urol
(2008) - et al.
Nephron sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome similar to radical nephrectomy
J Urol
(2004) Indications for conservative surgery in certain renal tumors: a study based on the growth pattern of the clear cell carcinoma
J Urol
(1950)- et al.
The feasibility of surgical enucleation for renal cell carcinoma
J Urol
(1986) - et al.
Ex situ study of the effectiveness of enucleation in patients with renal cell carcinoma
J Urol
(1988) - et al.
Optimal margin in nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma 4 cm or less
Eur Urol
(2003)
Is a 1-cm margin necessary during nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma?
Urology
Prognostic importance of resection margin width after nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma
Urology
Does the size of the surgical margin in partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma really matter?
J Urol
How important are surgical margins in nephron-sparing surgery?
Eur Urol Suppl
Cited by (121)
Predicting positive surgical margins in partial nephrectomy: A prospective multicentre observational study (the RECORd 2 project)
2020, European Journal of Surgical OncologyTumor Enucleation Is Appropriate During Partial Nephrectomy
2019, European Urology FocusA New Nephrometry Score for Predicting Positive Surgical Margin After Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy
2024, Annals of Surgical Oncology