Split renal function in patients with renal masses: utility of parenchymal volume analysis vs nuclear renal scans

• Published in: BJU international Vol. 125; no. 5; pp. 686 - 694
• Main Authors: Ye, Yunlin, Tanaka, Hajime, Wang, Yanbo, Campbell, Rebecca A., Aguilar Palacios, Diego, DeWitt‐Foy, Molly E., Mahmood, Furman A., Eltemamy, Mohamed, Remer, Erick M., Li, Jianbo, Campbell, Steven C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.05.2020
• Subjects: Computer programs; Epidermal growth factor receptors; Glomerular filtration rate; Kidney diseases; Nephrectomy; nuclear renal scan; parenchymal volume; partial nephrectomy; Patients; Renal function; Software; split renal function; Surgery; Tumors; nuclear renal scan; parenchymal volume; partial nephrectomy; split renal function
• ISSN: 1464-4096; 1464-410X
• DOI: 10.1111/bju.14997

Objectives To evaluate the utility of parenchymal volume analysis (PVA) for estimation of split renal function (SRF) in patients with renal masses. SRF is important for deciding about partial vs radical nephrectomy (PN/RN) and assessing risk for developing severe chronic kidney disease after surgery. For renal donors PVA is routinely used to estimate SRF, but the utility of PVA for the more complex renal mass population remains undefined. Patients and Methods All patients (n = 374) with renal tumours and a normal contralateral kidney managed with PN (2010–2018), with preoperative/postoperative nuclear renal scans (NRS) and cross‐sectional imaging were analysed. Parenchymal volumes were measured by free‐hand scripting or software analysis. Concordance between ipsilateral estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values based on SRF from NRS vs PVA were evaluated by Pearson correlation and Bland–Altman plots. Parallel analysis of all 155 patients managed with RN at our centre (2006–2016) with preoperative NRS and imaging was also performed. Results For PN, the median age and tumour size were 62 years and 3.4 cm, respectively. The median preoperative ipsilateral parenchymal volume and eGFR were 181 cm3 and 36.9 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Parenchymal volumes estimated by free‐hand scripting vs software analyses correlated strongly (r = 0.98, P < 0.001). Preoperative ipsilateral eGFR based on SRF from PVA vs NRS also correlated strongly (r = 0.94, P < 0.001). Ipsilateral eGFR saved after PN correlated strongly with parenchymal volume preserved (all r >0.60); however, the correlation was much stronger when ipsilateral eGFRs were based on SRF from PVA rather than NRS (z‐statistic = 3.15, P = 0.002). For RN patients, preoperative eGFR in the contralateral kidney based on SRF from PVA vs NRS also correlated strongly (r = 0.87, P < 0.001). Conclusion PVA has utility for estimation of SRF in patients with renal masses, even though this population is older and more comorbid than renal donors and the tumour can complicate the analysis. PVA can be obtained by software analysis from preoperative cross‐sectional imaging and thus readily incorporated into routine clinical practice.