Collaborative Review of Risk Benefit Trade-offs Between Partial and Radical Nephrectomy in the Management of Anatomically Complex Renal Masses

Background: While partial nephrectomy (PN) is the recommended treatment for many small renal masses, anatomically complex tumors necessitate a clear understanding of the potential risks and benefits of PN and radical nephrectomy (RN).

Objective: To critically review the comparative effectiveness evidence of PN versus RN; to describe key trade-offs involved in this treatment decision; and to highlight gaps in the current literature.

Evidence acquisition: A collaborative critical review of the medical literature was conducted.

Evidence synthesis: Patients who undergo PN for an anatomically complex or large mass may be exposed to perioperative and potential oncologic risks that could be avoided if RN were performed, while patients who undergo RN may forgo long-term benefits of renal preservation. Decision-making regarding the optimal treatment with PN or RN among patients with anatomically complex or large renal mass is highly nuanced and must balance the risks and benefits of each approach. Currently, high-quality evidence on comparative effectiveness is sparse. Retrospective comparisons are plagued by selection biases, while the one existing prospective randomized trial, albeit imperfect, suggests that nephron-sparing surgery may not benefit all patients.

Conclusions: For anatomically complex tumors, PN preserves renal parenchyma but may expose patients to higher perioperative risks than RN. The risks and benefits of each surgical approach must be better objectified for identification of patients most suitable for complex PN. A prospective randomized trial is warranted and would help in directing patient counseling.

Patient summary: Treatment decisions for complex renal masses require shared decision-making regarding the risk trade-offs between partial and radical nephrectomy.