Strong evidence comparing effectiveness between nephron-sparing intervention (NSI) and active surveillance (AS) is lacking. Thus, we aim to compare the outcomes of survival, including cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and cardiovascular-specific survival (CVSS), in patients with renal masses who underwent NSI or AS.
A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE was performed for citations published prior to September 2018 that described NSI, partial nephrectomy and thermal ablation included, and AS for patients with renal masses and a standard meta-analysis on survival outcomes was then conducted.
The meta-analysis included seven studies containing 5809 patients. The results comparing NSI with AS were as follows: CSS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.89, P < 0.001), OS (HR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.39-0.53, P < 0.001), and CVSS (HR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.24-0.57, P < 0.001).
This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that NSI is associated with better OS, CSS and CVSS when compared with AS for patients with renal masses. Further better prospective cohort studies are needed to make definitive statements about these different treatment methods.
BMC urology. 2019 Aug 05*** epublish ***
Run-Qi Guo, Xiao-Guang Li
Minimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, No.1 Dongdan Dahua Street, Beijing, 100370, People’s Republic of China., Minimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, No.1 Dongdan Dahua Street, Beijing, 100370, People’s Republic of China. .