Influencing factors analysis and prediction model construction of postoperative MIC comprehensive outcome in patients with early renal cell carcinoma treated with NSS

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn371439-20230512-00136

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the influencing factors of postoperative surgical margin， warm ischemia time and severe postoperative complication （MIC） comprehensive outcome in patients with stage T_1b renal cell carcinoma treated with nephron sparing surgery （NSS） and to establish a predictive model. Methods One hundred and seventy-four patients with stage T_1b renal cell carcinoma treated with NSS were retrospectively chosen in the period from January 2017 to January 2022 in 3201 Hospital. All patients were divided into MIC group （n=66） and non-MIC group （n=108） according to whether MIC was achieved after surgery or not. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to evaluate the independent influencing factors of postoperative MIC comprehensive outcome， and a nomogram prediction model was constructed according to the influencing factors and its predictive value was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve. Results There were statistically significant differences in the body mass index （t=2.81， P=0.006）， lesion morphology （χ²=41.41， P<0.001）， hot ischemia time （t=16.92， P<0.001）， creatinine increase within 24 h after surgery （t=16.79， P<0.001）， hemoglobin （Hb） decreased within 24 h after surgery （t=9.33， P<0.001）， perioperative complications （χ²=21.31， P<0.001）， R.E.N.A.L. score （t=4.74， P<0.001）， PADUA score （t=3.21， P=0.002） and Mayo perirenal adhesion index （t=22.28， P<0.001） in MIC group and non-MIC group. Multivariate analysis showed that body mass index （OR=0.31， 95%CI： 0.13-0.74， P=0.007）， lesion morphology （OR=0.36， 95%CI： 0.22-0.59， P<0.001）， PADUA score （OR=0.37， 95%CI： 0.17-0.81， P=0.013） and Mayo perirenal adhesion index （OR=0.43， 95%CI： 0.24-0.70， P=0.004） were all independent factors of postoperative MIC comprehensive outcomes in patients with stage T_1b renal cell carcinoma treated with NSS. The C-index of the nomogram model built according to the selected variables was 0.89 with high prediction accuracy； area under the curve （AUC） was 0.84 （95%CI： 0.77-0.91）， and it had good predictive performance. Conclusion Body mass index， lesion morphology， PADUA score and Mayo perirenal adhesion index are independent influencing factors for the MIC comprehensive outcome of patients with stage T_1b renal cell carcinoma after NSS treatment. The nomogram model based on the above indicators has better predictive performance.

Key words: Carcinoma， renal cell, Nephrectomy, Margins of excision, Warm ischemia, Postoperative complications

Li Shengping, Shi Yongzhu, Ma Feng. Influencing factors analysis and prediction model construction of postoperative MIC comprehensive outcome in patients with early renal cell carcinoma treated with NSS[J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2023, 50(12): 723-728.

Figures/Tables 4

References 24

[1]	Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660.
[2]	孙争辉, 黄晓娟, 董靖晗, 等. 临床T₁期肾细胞癌肾窦侵犯的危险因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(4): 659-664. DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.04.006.
[3]	Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, et al. European association of urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2019 update[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 75(5): 799-810. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.011. pmid: 30803729
[4]	刘鹏飞, 侯广东, 倪建鑫, 等. 保留肾单位手术后肾功能预后的影响因素分析[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 41(3): 179-184. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20190530-00254.
[5]	Teishima J, Hayashi T, Kitano H, et al. Impact of radiological morphology of clinical T₁ renal cell carcinoma on the prediction of upstaging to pathological T₃[J]. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2020, 50(4): 473-478. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyz154. pmid: 32100866
[6]	Farrow JM, Kern SQ, Gryzinski GM, et al. Nephron-sparing ma-nagement of upper tract urothelial carcinoma[J]. Investig Clin Urol, 2021, 62(4): 389-398. DOI: 10.4111/icu.20210113. pmid: 34190434
[7]	Manno S, Dell'Atti L, Cicione A, et al. Safety and efficacy of transperitoneal laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery in patients with previous abdominal surgery[J]. Urologia, 2021, 88(1): 14-20. DOI: 10.1177/0391560320921728.
[8]	Dahlkamp L, Haeuser L, Winnekendonk G, et al. Interdisciplinary comparison of PADUA and R.E.N.A.L. scoring systems for prediction of conversion to nephrectomy in patients with renal mass scheduled for nephron sparing surgery[J]. J Urol, 2019, 202(5): 890-898. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000361. pmid: 31145034
[9]	Sterzik A, Solyanik O, Eichelberg C, et al. Improved prediction of nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy by the optimized R.E.N.A.L. score in patients undergoing surgery for renal masses[J]. Minerva Urol Nefrol, 2019, 71(3): 249-257. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03134-X. pmid: 30256079
[10]	Li G, Zhu D, Gao H, et al. Oncologic outcomes of nephron-sparing surgery in patients with T₁ multifocal renal cell carcinoma[J]. Clin Transl Oncol, 2019, 21(6): 760-765. DOI: 10.1007/s12094-018-1984-3. pmid: 30443869
[11]	张浩洋, 孙嘉乐, 胡灿, 等. 四种肾肿瘤评分系统预测后腹腔镜下肾部分切除术临床结局的比较[J]. 东南大学学报(医学版), 2021, 40(4): 427-434. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6264.2021.04.002.
[12]	Abu-Ghanem Y, Powles T, Capitanio U, et al. Should patients with low-risk renal cell carcinoma be followed differently after nephron-sparing surgery vs radical nephrectomy?[J]. BJU Int, 2021, 128(3): 386-394. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15415. pmid: 33794055
[13]	Ko YH. Nephron-sparing approaches in the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: indications and clinical outcomes[J]. Transl Cancer Res, 2020, 9(10): 6589-6595. DOI: 10.21037/tcr.2020.03.66. pmid: 35117269
[14]	Hakam N, Abou Heidar N, Khabsa J, et al. Does a positive surgical margin after nephron sparing surgery affect oncological outcome in renal cell carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Urology, 2021, 156: e30-e39. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.04.058. pmid: 34186133
[15]	Kumar P, Hussain M, Jabeen M, et al. Outcomes of nephron-sparing surgery in T₁ vs T₂ renal tumours[J]. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 2022, 32(5): 627-631. DOI: 10.29271/jcpsp.2022.05.627.
[16]	Borregales LD, Adibi M, Thomas AZ, et al. Predicting adherent perinephric fat using preoperative clinical and radiological factors in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy[J]. Eur Urol Focus, 2021, 7(2): 397-403. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.10.007. pmid: 31685445
[17]	Li G, Xiao T, Wang K, et al. Histopathological validation of safe margin for nephron-sparing surgery based on individual tumor growth pattern[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2021, 19(1): 255. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02375-3. pmid: 34454535
[18]	Hu C, Sun J, Zhang Z, et al. Parallel comparison of R.E.N.A.L., PADUA, and C-index scoring systems in predicting outcomes after partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Cancer Med, 2021, 10(15): 5062-5077. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4047.
[19]	Egen L, Kowalewski KF, Riffel P, et al. Nephrometry scores: can preoperative assessment of sectional imaging really mirror intra-operative renal tumor anatomy?[J]. Urol Int, 2021, 105(1-2): 108-117. DOI: 10.1159/000510684.
[20]	Zhang X, Su Z, Lv P, et al. Functional, oncological outcomes and safety of nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma with high anatomical complexity: a retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching method[J]. BMJ Open, 2021, 11(12): e051622. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051622.
[21]	Hua M, Liu W, Wang C, et al. Trans-retro-peritoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for posterior hilar tumor: technical feasibility and preliminary results[J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2023, 12(11): 1638-1644. DOI: 10.21037/tau-23-399.
[22]	Haehn DA, Bajalia EM, Cockerill KJ, et al. Validation of the Mayo adhesive probability score as a predictor of adherent perinephric fat and outcomes in open partial nephrectomy[J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2021, 10(1): 227-235. DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-926. pmid: 33532312
[23]	Yao Y, Xu Y, Gu L, et al. The Mayo adhesive probability score predicts longer dissection time during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy[J]. J Endourol, 2020, 34(5): 594-599. DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0687. pmid: 32164450
[24]	Attawettayanon W, Kazama A, Yasuda Y, et al. Thermal ablation versus partial nephrectomy for cT₁ renal mass in a solitary kidney: a matched cohort comparative analysis[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2023, 10(10): 814-822. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14646-2.

影响因素	MIC组（n=66）	非MIC组（n=108）	t/χ²值	P值
性别
男	48	82	0.22	0.638
女	18	26	0.22	0.638
年龄（岁）	59.65±10.61	57.91±10.25	1.06	0.289
体质量指数（kg/m²）	23.98±2.89	25.26±2.96	2.81	0.006
病灶位置
左肾	34	58	0.08	0.779
右肾	32	50	0.08	0.779
肿瘤最大径（cm）	4.76±1.20	4.83±1.29	0.36	0.717
病灶纵向位置
上下极	40	61	0.29	0.593
中间	26	47	0.29	0.593
病灶横向位置
外侧	54	83	0.60	0.437
内侧	12	25	0.60	0.437
病灶是否外凸
是	62	101	0.04	0.833
否	4	7	0.04	0.833
病灶形态学
圆形	64	54
小叶形	2	33	41.41	<0.001
不规则形	0	21
病理组织学类型
肾透明细胞癌	53	87
肾乳头状细胞癌	8	11	0.28	0.871
肾嫌色细胞癌	5	10
术式
开放	1	2	<0.01	>0.999
腹腔镜	65	106	<0.01	>0.999
手术入路
腹腔	35	53	0.26	0.613
后腹腔	31	55	0.26	0.613
切缘状态
阳性	0	1	<0.01	>0.999
阴性	66	107	<0.01	>0.999
手术时间（min）	149.65±23.61	154.91±25.85	1.38	0.171
热缺血时间（min）	16.41±2.85	28.80±5.51	16.92	<0.001
术中出血量（ml）	98.71±18.65	101.35±19.84	0.88	0.378
术后住院时间（d）	7.50±1.29	7.67±1.41	0.81	0.417
术后24 h内肌酐升高值（μmol/L）	12.27±1.57	16.79±1.95	16.79	<0.001
术后24 h内Hb下降值（μmol/L）	11.73±3.40	18.22±5.78	9.33	<0.001
围手术期并发症
无	61	65
Ⅰ~Ⅱ级	5	33	21.31	<0.001
Ⅲ~Ⅳ级	0	10
R.E.N.A.L.评分（分）	7.46±1.60	8.73±1.89	4.74	<0.001
PADUA评分（分）	8.23±2.57	9.58±2.88	3.21	0.002
C-index评分（分）	1.67±0.36	1.73±0.42	1.00	0.318
DAP评分（分）	7.02±1.35	7.17±1.38	0.71	0.482
梅奥肾周粘连指数	0.51±0.12	1.05±0.20	22.28	<0.001

影响因素	b值	SE值	Wald值	OR值	95%CI	P值
体质量指数	-1.17	0.44	7.07	0.31	0.13~0.74	0.007
病灶形态学	-1.02	0.25	16.65	0.36	0.22~0.59	<0.001
热缺血时间	-1.35	1.11	1.48	0.26	0.03~2.28	0.223
术后24 h内肌酐升高值	-1.02	0.84	1.47	0.36	0.07~1.87	0.224
术后24 h内Hb下降值	-1.66	0.92	3.26	0.19	0.03~1.15	0.071
围手术期并发症	1.25	1.02	1.50	3.49	0.47~25.77	0.220
R.E.N.A.L.评分	-1.58	1.14	1.92	0.21	0.02~1.92	0.165
PADUA评分	-0.99	0.40	6.13	0.37	0.17~0.81	0.013
梅奥肾周粘连指数	-0.85	0.30	8.03	0.43	0.24~0.70	0.004