PTU - Polskie Towarzystwo Urologiczne
list of articles:

The influence of tumor size on the long-term results of nephron sparing surgery (NSS) and progression in patients with kidney neoplasm pT1
Article published in Urologia Polska 2008/61/3.


Mieczysław Fryczkowski, Andrzej Kupilas, Piotr Bryniarski, Andrzej Paradysz
Katedra i Klinika Urologii w Zabrzu Śląskiego Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Katowicach


kidney tumor renis pT1 NSS results progression after 6 years



The increasing role of NSS in pT1a kidney tumor surgery was completely confirmed as in oncological so as nephrological point of view. We can observe that indications for NSS have been expanding, including pT1b and pT2 kidney tumors. It brings many questions.

The aim of the study.

Results and tumor progression after 5 years will give the answer whether such treatment is effective or not. The aim of this study is such estimation.

Material and method.

The group of 195 patients, age 25-76, after NSS done 5 to 240 months earlier (mean 75.3 months) was analysed. They were divided into 3 groups: I – with tumors up to 3 cm in diameter (n-82), II – with tumors up to 5 cm in diameter (n-76), III – with tumors over 5 cm in diameter (n-37).


We obtained 90.5% of general survival, 92.3% of specific survival and 91.3% without progression. The differences statistically significant in this matter were between I and III group of patients. They were also found in subsequent groups depending on G3-4 presence, obligatory indications for NSS, symptomatic illness.


1. Size of the kidney tumor in pT1 limits in patients after NSS has the significant influence on the percentage of progression, death rate, kidney failure.
2. Factors that worsen the risk of progression in kidney tumors over 3 cm are: symptomatic illness, obligatory indications for operation, patient with G3-4 tumor.
3. Tumors over 5 cm in diameter are accompanied with higher progression, and lower 6 years survival, especially among men, after tumor enucleation, in G2 and G3-4 tumors and in RCC clarocellulare.


  1. Patard JJ, Shvarts O, Lam JS et al: Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based on an international multicenter experience. J Urol 2004, 171, 2181-2185.
  2. Jacobsohn K, Sanchez-Ortiz R, Matin S et al: Partial nephrectomy is safe and efficacious for pathologic stage T2-T3b renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2006, 68, Abstr. PD-08.01.
  3. Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al: Nephron sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome similar to radical nephrectomy. J Urol 2004, 171, 1066-1070.
  4. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Chao D et al: Reevaluation of the 1997 TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: T1 and T2 cutoff point at 4.5 rather than 7 cm. better correlates with clinical outcome. J Urol 2001, 166, 54-58.
  5. Carini M, Minervini A, Lapini A et al: Simple enucleation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm in greatest dimension: progression and long-term survival. J Urol 2006, 175, 2022-2026.
  6. Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HC et al: Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameter. J Urol 2006, 176, 896-899.
  7. Fryczkowski M, Kupilas A, Paradysz A, Szczębara M: Próby oceny czynników ryzyka wystąpienia niewydolności nerki u chorych z guzem nowotworowym jedynej nerki po operacji organooszczędzającej (NSS). Urol Pol 2007, 60, 25-29.
  8. Ljungberg B, Joanssen H, Stenling R: Prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma. Int Urol Nephrol 1988, 20, 115-121.
  9. Aron M, Gill IS: Minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery (MINSS) for renal tumours part I: laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2007,
  10. 51, 337-346. 10. Eschwege P, Saussine C, Steichen G et al: Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma 30 mm. or less: long-term follow results. J Urol 1996, 155, 1196-1199.
  11. Nguyen MM, Gill IS, Ellison IM: Survival from cell carcinoma has improved beyond that expected by decreasing tumor size. Trends from the SEER programs. J Urol 2006, 173 supl. 4, Abstr. 727.
  12. Nguyen MM, Stain RJ, Hafron JM et al: The metastatic potential of small renal cancers is higher than previously believed. J Urol 2007, 177, supl. 4 Abstr. 501
  13. Lee K, Kwon J, Kim E et al: The impact of tumor associated symptoms the prognosis of the patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2006; 68 supl. 5a. Abstr. UP. 01.26.
  14. Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB et al: Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumors. J Urol 2000, 163, 426-430.
  15. Pahernik S, Ziegler S, Roos F: Small renal tumors: correlation of clinical and pathological features with tumor size. J Urol 2007, 178, 414-417.
  16. Fryczkowski M, Potyka A, Paradysz A. et al: Kliniczne i prognostyczne znaczenie organooszczędzających operacji. Ann Ac Med Siles 2003, 59, 95-101.
  17. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al: Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 2003, 170, 2217-2220.
  18. Eggener SE, Rubenstein JN, Smith ND et al: Renal tumors in young adults. J Urol 2004, 171, 106-110.
  19. Lapini A, Serni S, Minervini A et al: Progression and long-term survival after simple enucleation for the elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma: experience in 107 patients. J Urol 2005, 174. 57-60.
  20. Breda A, Stepanian SV, Liao J et al: Positive margins in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 855 cases: a multi-institutional survey from the United States and Europe. J Urol 2007, 178, 47-50.


Mieczysław Fryczkowski
Klinika Urologii ŚAM
ul. 3 Maja 13/15
41-800 Zabrze
tel. (032) 251 23 62