Prognostic significance of Fuhrman grade and age for cancer-specific and overall survival in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma: results of an international multi-institutional study on 2189 patients

. 2017 Dec ; 35 (12) : 1891-1897. [epub] 20170823

Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, multicentrická studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid28836063
Odkazy

PubMed 28836063
DOI 10.1007/s00345-017-2078-5
PII: 10.1007/s00345-017-2078-5
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

PURPOSE: Because the prognostic impact of the clinical and pathological features on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma (papRCC) is still controversial, we want to assess the impact of clinicopathological features, including Fuhrman grade and age, on survival in surgically treated papRCC patients in a large multi-institutional series. METHODS: We established a comprehensive multi-institutional database of surgically treated papRCC patients. Histopathological data collected from 2189 patients with papRCC after radical nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery were pooled from 18 centres in Europe and North America. OS and CSS probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable competing risks analyses were used to assess the impact of Fuhrman grade (FG1-FG4) and age groups (<50 years, 50-75 years, >75 years) on cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: CSS and OS rates for patients were 89 and 81% at 3 years, 86 and 75% at 5 years and 78 and 41% at 10 years after surgery, respectively. CSM differed significantly between FG 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-8.22; p < 0.001) and FG 4 (HR 8.93, 95% CI 4.25-18.79; p < 0.001) in comparison to FG 1. CSM was significantly worse in patients aged >75 (HR 2.85, 95% CI 2.06-3.95; p < 0.001) compared to <50 years. CONCLUSIONS: FG is a strong prognostic factor for CSS in papRCC patients. In addition, patients older than 75 have worse CSM than patients younger than 50 years. These findings should be considered for clinical decision making.

Carl Thiem Klinikum Cottbus Cottbus Germany

Centre of Urological Surgery Dialysis and Renal Transplantation Fundeni Clinical Institute Bucharest Romania

Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology Julius Maximilians University Medical Centre of Würzburg Würzburg Germany

Department of Urology ASL Abruzzo 2 Chieti Italy

Department of Urology Faculty Hospital Faculty of Medicine Charles University in Pilsen Pilsen Czech Republic

Department of Urology HELIOS Hospital Bad Saarow Bad Saarow Germany

Department of Urology Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia INCan Mexico City Mexico

Department of Urology Klinikum St Elisabeth Straubing Straubing Germany

Department of Urology Ludwig Maximilians University Campus Grosshadern Marchionistrasse 15 Munich 81377 Germany

Department of Urology Medical University Graz Graz Austria

Department of Urology Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Urology Universitat de Barcelona Hospital Clínic C Villarroel 170 08036 Barcelona Spain

Department of Urology University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden Germany

Department of Urology University Hospital Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany

Department of Urology University Hospital Mainz Mainz Germany

Department of Urology University of Muenster Medical Center Münster Germany

Hospital Clínic University of Barcelona Barcelona Spain

IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Department of Urology Vita Salute San Raffaele University Milan Italy

Mannheim Medical Center Department of Urology University of Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany

Komentář v

PubMed

Komentář v

PubMed

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):913-24 PubMed

Am J Surg Pathol. 2013 Oct;37(10):1469-89 PubMed

Stat Med. 1996 Feb 28;15(4):361-87 PubMed

J Urol. 2010 Apr;183(4):1309-15 PubMed

Urology. 2011 Apr;77(4):842-7 PubMed

Am J Surg Pathol. 1982 Oct;6(7):655-63 PubMed

Hum Pathol. 2001 Jun;32(6):590-5 PubMed

Can Urol Assoc J. 2008 Dec;2(6):610-7 PubMed

World J Urol. 2016 Mar;34(3):347-52 PubMed

Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 May;27(5):612-24 PubMed

Am J Surg Pathol. 2014 Aug;38(8):1017-22 PubMed

Urol Oncol. 2014 Nov;32(8):1252-8 PubMed

Am J Surg Pathol. 2013 Oct;37(10):1490-504 PubMed

Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Aug;35(8):1134-9 PubMed

Eur J Cancer. 2012 Oct;48(15):2347-52 PubMed

J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 20;23(12):2763-71 PubMed

Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Feb 15;15(4):1162-9 PubMed

Urology. 2004 Jan;63(1):41-5 PubMed

Hum Pathol. 2004 Dec;35(12):1556-63 PubMed

Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Sep;30(9):1091-6 PubMed

J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):460-6 PubMed

Pathology. 2007 Oct;39(5):459-65 PubMed

Urology. 2007 Feb;69(2):230-5 PubMed

J Urol. 2010 Jun;183(6):2143-7 PubMed

J Urol. 2014 Feb;191(2):310-5 PubMed

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...