Background: Strong evidence comparing effectiveness between nephron-sparing intervention (NSI) and active\nsurveillance (AS) is lacking. Thus, we aim to compare the outcomes of survival, including cancer-specific survival (CSS),\noverall survival (OS), and cardiovascular-specific survival (CVSS), in patients with renal masses who underwent NSI or AS.\nMethods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE was performed for citations published\nprior to September 2018 that described NSI, partial nephrectomy and thermal ablation included, and AS for patients with\nrenal masses and a standard meta-analysis on survival outcomes was then conducted.\nResults: The meta-analysis included seven studies containing 5809 patients. The results comparing NSI with AS were as\nfollows: CSS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.89, P < 0.001), OS (HR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.39-0.53,\nP < 0.001), and CVSS (HR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.24-0.57, P < 0.001).\nConclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that NSI is associated with better OS, CSS and CVSS\nwhen compared with AS for patients with renal masses. Further better prospective cohort studies are needed to make\ndefinitive statements about these different treatment methods.
Loading....