Korean J Urol.  2015 Sep;56(9):607-613. 10.4111/kju.2015.56.9.607.

National nephrectomy registries: Reviewing the need for population-based data

• Pearson J
• Williamson T
• Ischia J
• Bolton DM
• Frydenberg M
• Lawrentschuk N

• KMID: 2344098
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.9.607

Abstract

Nephrectomy is the cornerstone therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and continued refinement of the procedure through research may enhance patient outcomes. A national nephrectomy registry may provide the key information needed to assess the procedure at a national level. The aim of this study was to review nephrectomy data available at a population-based level in Australia and to benchmark these data against data from the rest of the world as an examination of the national nephrectomy registry model. A PubMed search identified records pertaining to RCC nephrectomy in Australia. A similar search identified records relating to established nephrectomy registries internationally and other surgical registries of clinical importance. These records were reviewed to address the stated aims of this article. Population-based data within Australia for nephrectomy were lacking. Key issues identified were the difficulty in benchmarking outcomes and no ongoing monitoring of trends. The care centralization debate, which questions whether small-volume centers provide comparable outcomes to high-volume centers, is ongoing. Patterns of adherence and the effectiveness of existing protocols are uncertain. A review of established international registries demonstrated that the registry model can effectively address issues comparable to those identified in the Australian literature. A national nephrectomy registry could address deficiencies identified in a given nation's nephrectomy field. The model is supported by evidence from international examples and will provide the population-based data needed for studies. Scope exists for possible integration with other registries to develop a more encompassing urological or surgical registry. Need remains for further exploration of the feasibility and practicalities of initiating such a registry including a minimum data set, outcome indicators, and auditing of data.

Keyword

Kidney neoplasms; Nephrectomy; Registries

MeSH Terms

Australia
Benchmarking
Carcinoma, Renal Cell/*surgery
Guideline Adherence
Humans
Kidney Neoplasms/*surgery
Models, Theoretical
Nephrectomy/*standards/*statistics & numerical data
Practice Guidelines as Topic
*Registries
Treatment Outcome

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Identification and screening of Australian nephrectomy publications.

Reference

1. Gandaglia G, Bray F, Cooperberg MR, Karnes RJ, Leveridge MJ, Moretti K, et al. Prostate Cancer Registries: current status and future directions. Eur Urol. 2015; 06. 06. [Epub]. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.046.

2. Jackson BL, Fowler S, Williams ST. British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) - Section of Oncology. Perioperative outcomes of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the UK in 2012. BJU Int. 2014; 08. 07. [Epub]. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12890.

3. Henderson JM, Fowler S, Joyce A, Dickinson A, Keeley FX. BAUS. Perioperative outcomes of 6042 nephrectomies in 2012: surgeon-reported results in the UK from the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) nephrectomy database. BJU Int. 2015; 115:121–126.

4. Connolly SS, Rochester MA. BAUS. Nephroureterectomy surgery in the UK in 2012: British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Registry data. BJU Int. 2014; 06. 06. [Epub]. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12827.

5. Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer. 2008; 113:78–83.

6. Shuch B, Hanley J, Lai J, Vourganti S, Kim SP, Setodji CM, et al. Overall survival advantage with partial nephrectomy: a bias of observational data. Cancer. 2013; 119:2981–2989.

7. Evans SM, Millar JL, Wood JM, Davis ID, Bolton D, Giles GG, et al. The Prostate Cancer Registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013; 111(4 Pt B):E158–E166.

8. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer survival and prevalence in Australia: period estimates from 1982 to 2010. Cancer Series no. 69. Cat. no. CAN 65. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare;2012.

9. King SC, Pollack LA, Li J, King JB, Master VA. Continued increase in incidence of renal cell carcinoma, especially in young patients and high grade disease: United States 2001 to 2010. J Urol. 2014; 191:1665–1670.

10. De P, Otterstatter MC, Semenciw R, Ellison LF, Marrett LD, Dryer D. Trends in incidence, mortality, and survival for kidney cancer in Canada, 1986-2007. Cancer Causes Control. 2014; 25:1271–1281.

11. Souza DL, Bernal MM. Incidence, prevalence and mortality of kidney cancer in Spain: estimates and projections for the 1998-2022 period. Actas Urol Esp. 2012; 36:521–526.

12. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Lee C, Feigelson HS, Flynn M, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010. JAMA. 2012; 307:2400–2409.

13. Bolton DM, Wong P, Lawrentschuk N. Renal cell carcinoma: imaging and therapy. Curr Opin Urol. 2007; 17:337–340.

14. Van Poppel H, Becker F, Cadeddu JA, Gill IS, Janetschek G, Jewett MA, et al. Treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2011; 60:662–672.

15. Shuch B, Amin A, Armstrong AJ, Eble JN, Ficarra V, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Understanding pathologic variants of renal cell carcinoma: distilling therapeutic opportunities from biologic complexity. Eur Urol. 2015; 67:85–97.

16. Ta AD, Bolton DM, Dimech MK, White V, Davis ID, Coory M, et al. Contemporary management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Victoria: implications for longer term outcomes and costs. BJU Int. 2013; 112:Suppl 2. 36–43.

17. O'Malley PJ, Bruyere F, Costello AJ. Evolution to nephronsparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma. ANZ J Surg. 2007; 77:2–3.

18. Sullivan M, Frydenberg M. Nephron-sparing surgery for small incidental renal cell carcinoma. ANZ J Surg. 2001; 71:349–353.

19. Dias M, Coombes G. The case for partial nephrectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008; 90:280–281.

20. Louie-Johnsun M, Lalak A. The case for radical nephrectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008; 90:278–280.

21. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62:e1–e34.

22. Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, Garmo H, Hellstrom K, Fransson P, et al. Cohort profile: the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 20. Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42:956–967.

23. Satasivam P, Rajarubendra N, Chia PH, Munshey A, Sengupta S, Bolton D. Trends in the use of of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) at an Australian tertiary referral centre: an analysis of surgical decision-making using the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system. BJU Int. 2012; 109:1341–1344.

24. Jack GS, Lua M, Chan Y, Bolton DM. Integration of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy into an Australian public hospital: three-year follow-up of our initial 50 cases. BJU Int. 2012; 109:Suppl 3. 35–39.

25. Cheung MC, Lee YM, Rindani R, Lau H. Oncological outcome of 100 laparoscopic radical nephrectomies for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma. ANZ J Surg. 2005; 75:593–596.

26. Tiu A, Shin TY, Kim KH, Lim SK, Han WK, Rha KH. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site transumbilical partial nephrectomy: functional and oncologic outcomes at 2 years. Urology. 2013; 82:595–599.

27. Satasivam P, Sengupta S, Rajarubendra N, Chia PH, Munshey A, Bolton D. Renal lesions with low R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score are associated with more indolent renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) or benign histology: findings in an Australian cohort. BJU Int. 2012; 109:Suppl 3. 44–47.

28. Satasivam P, Reeves F, Rao K, Ivey Z, Basto M, Yip M, et al. Patients with medical risk factors for chronic kidney disease are at increased risk of renal impairment despite the use of nephron-sparing surgery. BJU Int. 2015; 02. 13. [Epub]. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13075.

29. Doeuk N, Guo DY, Haddad R, Lau H, Woo HH, Bariol S, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: stage, grade and histology migration over the last 15 years in a large Australian surgical series. BJU Int. 2011; 107:1381–1385.

30. Stewart GD, Phipps S, Little B, Leveckis J, Stolzenburg JU, Tolley DA, et al. Description and validation of a modular training system for laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2012; 26:1512–1517.

31. Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT, Coleman JA, Dahm P, Derweesh IH, et al. Follow-up for Clinically Localized Renal Neoplasms: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2013; 190:407–416.

32. Ljungberg B, Alamdari FI, Rasmuson T, Roos G. Follow-up guidelines for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma based on the occurrence of metastases after radical nephrectomy. BJU Int. 1999; 84:405–411.

33. Kassouf W, Siemens R, Morash C, Lacombe L, Jewett M, Goldenberg L, et al. Follow-up guidelines after radical or partial nephrectomy for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma. Can Urol Assoc J. 2009; 3:73–76.

34. Basu S, Biyani CS, Sundaram SK, Spencer J. A survey of follow-up practice of urologists across Britain and Ireland following nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Clin Radiol. 2006; 61:854–860.