| Title |
RFA versus robotic partial nephrectomy for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched comparison of mid-term outcome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-018-5305-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Byung Kwan Park, In Hyuck Gong, Min Yong Kang, Hyun Hwan Sung, Hwang Gyun Jeon, Byong Chang Jeong, Seong Soo Jeon, Hyun Moo Lee, Seong Il Seo |
| Abstract |
To compare oncological and functional mid-term outcomes following robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using propensity score-matching. Between December 2008-April 2016, 63 patients from each treatment group were propensity score-matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumour size, tumour laterality, tumour histology, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Post-treatment follow-up periods for RPN and RFA ranged from 1-90 months (median, 24.6) and 1-65 months (21), respectively. Tumour location, percentage of eGFR preservation and 2-year recurrence-free survival rate were compared between groups. Exophytic and endophytic RCC occurred in 73.0 % (46/63) and 27.0 % (17/63) of the RPN group, and 52.4 % (33/63) and 47.6 % (30/63) of the RFA group, respectively (p=0.017). There was 91.7 % preservation of eGFR in the RPN group and 86.8 % in the RFA group (p=0.088). Two-year recurrence-free survival rate was 100 % in the RPN and 95.2 % in the RFA group (p=0.029). RPN provides a higher recurrence-free survival rate than RFA. However, RFA is a better treatment option for an endophytic or recurrent RCC that is difficult to treat with RPN. • RPN provides a higher recurrence-free survival rate than RFA. • Unlike RPN, repeat RFA is easy to perform for recurrent RCC. • Endophytic RCC could be better treated with RFA. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 48% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,493,633
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#942
of 4,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,029
of 442,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#26
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,171 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.