Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 20:3 | Cite as

Surgical Treatment of Completely Endophytic Renal Tumor: a Systematic Review

  • Javier Perez-Ardavin
  • Jose Vicente Sanchez-Gonzalez
  • Manuel Martinez-Sarmiento
  • Juan Jose Monserrat-Monfort
  • Jorge García-Olaverri
  • Francisco Boronat-Tormo
  • César D. Vera-DonosoEmail author
Kidney Diseases (G Ciancio, Section Editor)
  • 29 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Kidney Diseases

Abstract

Purpose of Review

An endophytic renal tumor represents a special surgical challenge in terms of location and safe removal. For this reason we wanted to review the existing literature on this subject.

Recent Findings

In high-activity robotic centers, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a safe and efficacious surgical approach for completely endophytic renal tumors. As research innovation, the application of the radio-guided occult lesion localization technique (ROLL) facilitates the location and complete excision of the tumor during surgery.

Summary

There are few studies that specifically report the experience with completely endophytic renal tumors. The endophytic tumor is usually smaller than exophytic. Frequently it represents a high complexity value in the different Score systems reported in the last decade. This surgery should be performed by experienced urologists regardless of the surgical approach they prefer (open, laparoscopic, or robotic). It is necessary to develop new techniques for intraoperative easy localization and intraoperative evaluation of surgical margins.

Keywords

Endophytic tumor Intraparenchymal tumor Open partial nephrectomy Renal tumor Surgical treatment Robotic partial nephrectomy Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Javier Perez-Ardavin, Jose Vicente Sanchez-Gonzalez, Manuel Martinez-Sarmiento, Juan Jose Monserrat-Monfort, Jorge García-Olaverri, Francisco Boronat-Tormo, and César D. Vera-Donoso each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;98(18):1331–4.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson DC, Vukina J, Smith AB, Meyer AM, Wheeler SB, Kuo TM, et al. Preoperatively misclassified, surgically removed benign renal masses: a systematic review of surgical series and United States population level burden estimate. J Urol. 2015;193(1):30–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer. 2008;113(1):78–83.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23518.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smaldone MC, Egleston B, Hollingsworth JM, Hollenbeck BK, Miller DC, Morgan TM, et al. Understanding treatment disconnect and mortality trends in renal cell carcinoma using tumor registry data. Med Care. 2017;55:398–404.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000657.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thompson RH, Kurta JM, Kaag M, Tickoo SK, Kundu S, Katz D, et al. Tumor size is associated with malignant potential in renal cell carcinoma cases. J Urol. 2009;181(5):2033–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.027.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Novick AC, Streem S, Montie JE, Pontes JE, Siegel S, Montague DK, et al. Conservative surgery for renal cell carcinoma: a single-center experience with 100 patients. J Urol. 1989;141(4):835–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Kara O, Maurice MJ, Malkoc E, Ramirez D, Nelson RJ, Caputo PA, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted and open partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumours: a single centre experience. BJU Int. 2016;118(6):946–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13572 A big series showing similar results of open and robotic partial nephrectomy in endophytic tumors.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Autorino R, Khalifeh A, Laydner H, Samarasekera D, Rizkala E, Eyraud R, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for completely endophytic renal masses: a single institution experience. BJU Int. 2014;113(5):762–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12455 First report of RAPN for endophytic renal tumors with an important number of patients.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung BI, Lee UJ, Kamoi K, Canes DA, Aron M, Gill IS. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for completely intraparenchymal tumors. J Urol. 2011;186(6):2182–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Betancourt Hernández JA, Vera Donoso C, Martinez-Sarmiento M, Monserrat JJ, Bello Jarque P, Boronat Tormo F. Application of the radio-guided occult lesion localization technique for renal lumpectomy: from the laboratory to the patient. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42(11):e467–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• 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;118(1):206–11.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25103 A big cohort encouraging open or robotic partial nephrectomy in endophytic tumors achieving good TRIFECTA criteria.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Di Pierro GB, Tartaglia N, Aresu L, Polara A, Cielo A, Cristini C, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for endophytic hilar tumors: feasibility and outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(6):769–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.11.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zapala P, Dybowski B, Miazek N, Radziszewski P. Open partial nephrectomy for entirely intraparenchymal tumors: a matched case-control study of oncologic outcome and complication rate. Int Braz J Urol. 2017;43(2):209–15.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0040.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nadu A, Goldberg H, Lubin M, Baniel J. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for totally intrarenal tumours. BJU Int. 2013;112(2):E82–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weight CJ, Lane BR, Gill IS. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for selected central tumours: omitting the bolster. BJU Int. 2007;100(2):375–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dall'Oglio MF, Ballarotti L, Passerotti CC, Paluello DV, Colombo JR Jr, Crippa A, et al. Anatrophic nephrotomy as nephron-sparing approach for complete removal of intraparenchymal renal tumors. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38(3):356–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Komninos C, Shin TY, Tuliao P, Kim DK, Han WK, Chung BH, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors: complications and functional and oncologic outcomes during a 4-year median period of follow-up. Urology. 2014;84(6):1367–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mullerad M, Kastin A, Adusumilli PS, Moskovitz B, Sabo E, Nativ O. Comparison of nephron-sparing surgery in central versus peripheral renal tumors. Urology. 2005;65(3):467–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Black P, Filipas D, Fichtner J, Hohenfellner R, Thüroff JW. Nephron sparing surgery for central renal tumors: experience with 33 cases. J Urol. 2000;163(3):737–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Santos VE, Meduna RR, Bachega W Jr, Guimarães GC. Completely endophytic renal tumor: a laparoscopic approach. Int Braz J Urol. 2018;44:1050.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2017.0534.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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;182(3):844–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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;56(5):786–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Mohapatra A, Potretzke AM, Weaver J, Anderson BG, Vetter J, Figenshau RS. Trends in the management of small renal masses: a survey of members of the Endourological Society. J Kidney Cancer VHL. 2017;4(3):10–9.  https://doi.org/10.15586/jkcvhl.2017.82 eCollection 2017. This work shows the trends and evolution of surgical techniques among urologists in USA.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Perez-Ardavin
    • 1
  • Jose Vicente Sanchez-Gonzalez
    • 1
  • Manuel Martinez-Sarmiento
    • 1
  • Juan Jose Monserrat-Monfort
    • 1
  • Jorge García-Olaverri
    • 2
  • Francisco Boronat-Tormo
    • 1
  • César D. Vera-Donoso
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyLa Fe HospitalValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of UrologyHospital de CrucesBaracaldoSpain

Personalised recommendations