UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Context: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2-3% of adult malignancies. There remain uncertainties over the oncological outcomes for the surgical management of localised RCC. Objective: To systematically review relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0). Evidence Acquisition: Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2010, and an updated scoping search was performed up to January 2012. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well defined registries/databases were included. The main outcomes were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence and metastases. The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool was used to assess RCTs and an extended version was used to assess Non Randomised Studies (NRS). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Evidence Synthesis: 4580 abstracts and 389 full text articles were assessed. 34 studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 28 NRSs). Meta-analyses were planned but were deemed inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. There were high risks of bias and low quality evidence across the evidence base. Open radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy showed similar cancer-specific and overall survival, but when both open and laparoscopic approaches are considered together the evidence showed improved survival for partial nephrectomy for tumours ≤4cm.Overall, the evidence suggests either equivalent or better survival with partial nephrectomy. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy offered equivalent survival to open radical nephrectomy, and all laparoscopic approaches achieved equivalent survival. Open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy achieved equivalent survival. The issue of ipsilateral adrenalectomy or complete lymph node dissection with radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy remains unresolved. Conclusions: The evidence base suggests localised RCC are best managed by nephron sparing surgery where technically feasible. However, the current evidence base has significant limitations due to studies of low methodological quality marked by high risks of bias.

The available evidence base remains insufficient to guide practice. In addition, the finding that placebo saline injection was followed by a similar symptomatic improvement to bulking agent injection raises questions about the mechanism of any beneficial effects. One small trial comparing silicone particles with pelvic floor muscle training was suggestive of benefit at three months but it is not known if this was sustained, and the treatment was associated with high levels of postoperative retention and dysuria. Greater symptomatic improvement was observed with surgical treatments, though the advantages need to be set against likely higher risks. No clear-cut conclusions could be drawn from trials comparing alternative agents, although dextranomer hyaluronic acid was associated with more local side effects and is no longer commercially available for this indication. There is insufficient evidence to show superiority of mid-urethral or bladder neck injection. The single trial of autologous fat provides a reminder that periurethral injections can occasionally cause serious side effects. Also, a Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified three studies suggesting that urethral bulking agent might be more cost-effective compared with retropubic mid-urethral slings, transobturator or traditional sling procedure when used as an initial treatment in women without hypermobility or as a follow-up to surgery failure provided injection is kept minimal. However, urethral bulking agent might not be cost-effective when compared with traditional sling as an initial treatment of SUI when a patient is followed up for a longer period (15 months post-surgery).