OBJECTIVE: Tumor stage, histological pattern, cell type, diameter and cell ploidy are the factor that have been proposed for predicting the prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). There is a wide variation in the reported incidence of p53 mutation in RCC, and its prognostic significance for this tumor is unknown. We investigated the prognostic value of p53 mutations among other prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We evaluated the stages, tumor diameters, histological grades, cellular patterns and the presence of mutant p53 protein in 50 cases of RCC. The survival function of each parameter was estimated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests, and the significance of each parameter on survival was evaluated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The p53 mutation incidence was 20% in the RCC cases included in the study (n = 50). The survival rates of stages pT(2), pT(3) and pT(2-3)N+ were 87.8, 61.0 and 0%, respectively (p = 0.0462). The survival analysis of grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 tumors revealed 92.3 and 51.5% survival rates, respectively (p = 0.002). The survival rates of mutant p53+ and mutant p53- cases were 33.3 and 84.2%, respectively (p = 0.0027). The logistic regression test analysis demonstrated that tumor grade, tumor stage and mutant p53 positivity status were the most significant prognostic factors (p < 0.03). The survival rates of mutant p53+ and p53- cases at stages pT(2), pT(3) and pT(2-3)N+ were 66.67 versus 91.48%, 33.3 versus 71.43% and 0 versus 100%, respectively (p = 0.0392). A similar finding was present at each stage for cellular grades (p = 0.0093). The survival rates of mutant p53+ and p53- cases for grades 3 and 4 were 33.33 and 74.48%, respectively (p = 0.2731). CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that many parameters can affect survival of RCC cases, but among these, tumor grade, tumor stage and p53 mutation status are the most important prognostic factors, but p53 mutation status and cellular grade can afford additional prognostic information at each stage. Copyright 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
OBJECTIVE:Tumor stage, histological pattern, cell type, diameter and cell ploidy are the factor that have been proposed for predicting the prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). There is a wide variation in the reported incidence of p53 mutation in RCC, and its prognostic significance for this tumor is unknown. We investigated the prognostic value of p53 mutations among other prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We evaluated the stages, tumor diameters, histological grades, cellular patterns and the presence of mutant p53 protein in 50 cases of RCC. The survival function of each parameter was estimated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests, and the significance of each parameter on survival was evaluated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The p53 mutation incidence was 20% in the RCC cases included in the study (n = 50). The survival rates of stages pT(2), pT(3) and pT(2-3)N+ were 87.8, 61.0 and 0%, respectively (p = 0.0462). The survival analysis of grade 1-2 and grade 3-4 tumors revealed 92.3 and 51.5% survival rates, respectively (p = 0.002). The survival rates of mutant p53+ and mutant p53- cases were 33.3 and 84.2%, respectively (p = 0.0027). The logistic regression test analysis demonstrated that tumor grade, tumor stage and mutant p53 positivity status were the most significant prognostic factors (p < 0.03). The survival rates of mutant p53+ and p53- cases at stages pT(2), pT(3) and pT(2-3)N+ were 66.67 versus 91.48%, 33.3 versus 71.43% and 0 versus 100%, respectively (p = 0.0392). A similar finding was present at each stage for cellular grades (p = 0.0093). The survival rates of mutant p53+ and p53- cases for grades 3 and 4 were 33.33 and 74.48%, respectively (p = 0.2731). CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that many parameters can affect survival of RCC cases, but among these, tumor grade, tumor stage and p53 mutation status are the most important prognostic factors, but p53 mutation status and cellular grade can afford additional prognostic information at each stage. Copyright 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: Nemanja Rodić; Reema Sharma; Rajni Sharma; John Zampella; Lixin Dai; Martin S Taylor; Ralph H Hruban; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Anirban Maitra; Michael S Torbenson; Michael Goggins; Ie-Ming Shih; Amy S Duffield; Elizabeth A Montgomery; Edward Gabrielson; George J Netto; Tamara L Lotan; Angelo M De Marzo; William Westra; Zev A Binder; Brent A Orr; Gary L Gallia; Charles G Eberhart; Jef D Boeke; Chris R Harris; Kathleen H Burns Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Aidan P Noon; Nikolina Vlatković; Radosław Polański; Maria Maguire; Howida Shawki; Keith Parsons; Mark T Boyd Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hyun-Jung Lee; Zhe Long Liang; Song Mei Huang; Jae-Sung Lim; DO-Young Yoon; Hyo-Jin Lee; Jin Man Kim Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Paul L Crispen; Stephen A Boorjian; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Eugene D Kwon Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ariane L Moore; Aashil A Batavia; Jack Kuipers; Jochen Singer; Elodie Burcklen; Peter Schraml; Christian Beisel; Holger Moch; Niko Beerenwinkel Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Dae Sung Cho; Hee Jae Joo; Dong Keun Oh; Ji Hun Kang; Young Soo Kim; Kyi Beom Lee; Se Joong Kim Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2005-02-28 Impact factor: 2.759