title: Argument in favor of performing partial nephrectomy for tumors greater than 7 cm: the metastatic prescription has already been written.
abstract: The acceptance of partial nephrectomy over the past few decades has been gradual with initial utilization of nephron sparing approach for tumors up to 4 cm and more recently up to 7 cm. The arbitrary cutoff values used in the historic recommendations are based on the oncologic outcomes documenting the increase in metastatic potential of renal lesions that is strongly associated with increase in tumor size. Despite these observations, radical nephrectomy has not been found to be protective from development of metastatic disease, and oncologic outcomes of partial nephrectomy for tumors matched for size or stage have not been inferior to radical nephrectomy. The present manuscript argues for avoidance of specific size cutoffs as patients with larger masses may benefit from maximal preservation of nephrons. These are the very patients at higher risk for metastatic disease, who may benefit from preserved renal function to allow for future additional therapies or adjuvant trials.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA. bratslag@upstate.edu
authors.forename: Gennady
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Bratslavsky
mesh_terms: D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D007680:Kidney Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D009392:Nephrectomy / Q000379:methods*