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
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study
PubMed
28836063
DOI
10.1007/s00345-017-2078-5
PII: 10.1007/s00345-017-2078-5
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Grading, Kidney cancer, Mortality, Renal cancer, Renal cell carcinoma, Subtype,
- MeSH
- Risk Assessment methods MeSH
- Kaplan-Meier Estimate MeSH
- Carcinoma, Renal Cell * diagnosis mortality pathology surgery MeSH
- Organ Sparing Treatments adverse effects methods MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Mortality MeSH
- Kidney Neoplasms * diagnosis mortality pathology surgery MeSH
- Nephrectomy * adverse effects methods MeSH
- Prognosis MeSH
- Proportional Hazards Models MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Neoplasm Staging MeSH
- Neoplasm Grading MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Geographicals
- Europe epidemiology MeSH
- North America epidemiology MeSH
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
Department of Urology ASL Abruzzo 2 Chieti Italy
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 Medical University Graz Graz Austria
Department of Urology Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
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
Mannheim Medical Center Department of Urology University of Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany
See more in 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