Local excision of small kidney cancers appears to treat cancer equally with added benefits of preserving more kidney tissue. After publication of guidelines recommending local excision where feasible, proportions of this procedure continue to increase and it is more widely spread. The rate of adoption of this complex procedure has slowed likely due to decreasing incidence of kidney cancer and emergence of other options.Background:
The purpose of the study was to compare utilization and predictors of partial nephrectomy (PN) in the pre- and post-guideline eras.Materials and Methods:
American Board of Urology certification/recertification operative logs were reviewed from 2003 to 2014. Nephrectomy cases were extracted using Current Procedural Terminology codes. The cases were then stratified according to pre-guidelines (2003-October 2009) and post-guidelines (November 2009-2014). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate patient, surgeon, and practice characteristics as predictors of PN. A general linear model with regression analysis was used to evaluate the change in PN over time relative to the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Results:
We identified 20,402 and 20,729 nephrectomies in the pre- and post-guidelines eras, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the post-guidelines group was more likely to undergo PN (odds ratio, 1.87; P < .001). The pre- as well as post-guidelines groups had a higher likelihood of undergoing PN with an open approach, higher-volume surgeons, and younger patient age (P < .05). Surgeon subspecialty and US region were no longer significant factors after guidelines publication. Number of PN normalized to the incidence of RCC continued to increase over time (0.14%/y; R2 = 0.77; P < .001).Conclusion:
Partial nephrectomy in the post-guidelines era is no longer confined to urological subspecialists or certain densely populated US regions. Although rates of PN continue to increase relative to the recently decreasing overall incidence of RCC, the slope has leveled off somewhat. This is likely related to clinical intricacies of the best treatment modality and technologic advances rather than changes related to guidelines publication.