Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard treatment for localized renal masses and should be preferred in clinical T1 (\<7 cm tumor diameter) renal tumors over radical nephrectomy (RN) whenever technically feasible. Nonetheless, indications, approaches, techniques for PN, and correct reporting of outcomes, are still a matter of great debate within the urology community. Concurrently, case-report series suggested that alternative strategies for the treatment of localized renal tumors (ablation techniques (AT), watchful waiting (WW), active surveillance (AS)) could be feasible with acceptable oncologic outcomes in particular settings of patients with localized renal tumors. In this complex clinical scenario, the role surgeon-related and environmental factors (such as surgical experience, hospital resources, countries' social background and performance of health system) are important to address the best personalized approach in patients with renal tumors. In the light of current evidence, many unsolved questions still remain and many unmet needs must be addressed. In particular, 1) the risk-benefit trade-offs between PN and RN for anatomically complex renal localized tumors; 2) the definition of evidence-based strategies to tailor the management strategy (AT vs WW vs AS vs surgery) in different subset of patients with particular clinical conditions (i.e. old, frail, comorbid patients); and 3) the definition of evidence-based recommendations to adapt surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic) and resection techniques to different patient-, tumor-, and surgeon-specific characteristics. To meet the challenges, to overcome the limitations of current kidney cancer literature (such as the retrospective study design, potential risk of biases, and heterogeneous follow-up of most series), and to provide high-quality evidence for future development of effective clinical practice Guidelines, we designed the international REgistry of COnservative or Radical treatment of localized kiDney tumors (i-RECORD) Project. The expected impact of the i-RECORD project is to provide robust evidence on the leading clinical and environmental factors driving selection of the management strategy in patients with kidney cancer, and the differential impact of different management strategies (including AS, WW, AT, PN and RN) on functional, perioperative and oncological outcomes, as well as quality of life assessment, at a mid-long term follow-up (5-10 years).
Kidney Cancer
Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard treatment for localized renal masses and should be preferred in clinical T1 (\<7 cm tumor diameter) renal tumors over radical nephrectomy (RN) whenever technically feasible. Nonetheless, indications, approaches, techniques for PN, and correct reporting of outcomes, are still a matter of great debate within the urology community. Concurrently, case-report series suggested that alternative strategies for the treatment of localized renal tumors (ablation techniques (AT), watchful waiting (WW), active surveillance (AS)) could be feasible with acceptable oncologic outcomes in particular settings of patients with localized renal tumors. In this complex clinical scenario, the role surgeon-related and environmental factors (such as surgical experience, hospital resources, countries' social background and performance of health system) are important to address the best personalized approach in patients with renal tumors. In the light of current evidence, many unsolved questions still remain and many unmet needs must be addressed. In particular, 1) the risk-benefit trade-offs between PN and RN for anatomically complex renal localized tumors; 2) the definition of evidence-based strategies to tailor the management strategy (AT vs WW vs AS vs surgery) in different subset of patients with particular clinical conditions (i.e. old, frail, comorbid patients); and 3) the definition of evidence-based recommendations to adapt surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic) and resection techniques to different patient-, tumor-, and surgeon-specific characteristics. To meet the challenges, to overcome the limitations of current kidney cancer literature (such as the retrospective study design, potential risk of biases, and heterogeneous follow-up of most series), and to provide high-quality evidence for future development of effective clinical practice Guidelines, we designed the international REgistry of COnservative or Radical treatment of localized kiDney tumors (i-RECORD) Project. The expected impact of the i-RECORD project is to provide robust evidence on the leading clinical and environmental factors driving selection of the management strategy in patients with kidney cancer, and the differential impact of different management strategies (including AS, WW, AT, PN and RN) on functional, perioperative and oncological outcomes, as well as quality of life assessment, at a mid-long term follow-up (5-10 years).
International REgistry of COnservative or Radical Treatment of Localized Kidney Tumors
-
Institute of Urology, University of Southern California., Los Angeles, California, United States, 90007
University of California San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, San Diego, California, United States, 92037
Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States, 94304
Loyola University Medical Center, Edward Hines VA Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60141
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 19104
VCU Health System, Richmond, Virginia, United States, 23298
Swedish Hospital, Seattle, Washington, United States, 98122
Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.
For general information about clinical research, read Learn About Studies.
18 Years to
ALL
No
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi,
Andrea Minervini, Prof., PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR, Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Sperimentale Via o Piazza Largo Brambilla 3 - 50134 Firenze (Italy)
2028-12-31