Abstract

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for roughly 3% of all adult malignancies. Surgery is the only approach that has been shown to be successful in treating kidney tumors. In point of fact, radical nephrectomy (RN) should continue to be considered the gold standard for treating advanced RCC. However, in cases with localized renal cell carcinoma (LRCC), the genuine improvement in survival rates attained by radical nephrectomy (RN) in comparison to organ-sparing surgery or simple nephrectomy (SN) remains debatable. The purpose of this research was to investigate the influence that the kind of nephrectomy has on the treatment outcomes for LRCC. Material and methods: We conducted an investigation of the long-term effects of RN (numbering 70 patients) and SN (numbering 30 patients) in a total of 100 patients who had LRCC. Between these two groups, there were no statistically significant differences seen in the tumor stages, age stratification, or gender distribution. We assessed the rates of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in both split groups so that we could evaluate and compare the effectiveness of RN and SN. The three-year overall survival rate for RNs was 91.1%, compared to 87.3% for SNs. Results: After the same time period, the CSS rates were 92.5% when they were just 90.2% before. In the RN group, the 5-year OS was 93.5%, whereas in the SN group, it was 91.5%. After a follow-up period of 5 years, the CSS for the RN group was 95.4%, whereas it was 92.3% for the SN group. There is no correlation between the kind of nephrectomy performed and LRCC results. The overall survival rates at three and five years, as well as the cancer-specific survival rates, were essentially equal for those in the RN and SN group. Conclusion: Hence, if radical nephrectomy does not ensure better survival than simple nephrectomy, the expediency of vast surgery in localized RCC is doubtful

Description