OBJECTIVES: To compare renal tumors with respect to initial clinical presentation and assess the prognostic value of a symptom based classification. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on symptoms at diagnosis, 388 renal tumors were stratified into three groups: (1) asymptomatic tumors; (2) tumors with local symptoms (3) tumors with systemic symptoms. The three groups were compared for usual clinical and pathological variables using chi(2)-tests and Anova regression, for qualitative and quantitative variables, respectively. Survival assessment was made with univariate and multivariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The three defined groups were significantly different for all analysed variables except for age, sex ratio and pathological subtype. In univariate analysis: ECOG performance status, symptom classification, tumour size, TNM stage and grade, adrenal, perinephric fat or vein invasion were significant prognostic factors (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, symptom classification, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade and perinephric fat invasion remained independent prognostic factors (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The proposed classification merits further validation through multi-institutional studies before integrating it in further prognosis algorithms.
OBJECTIVES: To compare renal tumors with respect to initial clinical presentation and assess the prognostic value of a symptom based classification. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on symptoms at diagnosis, 388 renal tumors were stratified into three groups: (1) asymptomatic tumors; (2) tumors with local symptoms (3) tumors with systemic symptoms. The three groups were compared for usual clinical and pathological variables using chi(2)-tests and Anova regression, for qualitative and quantitative variables, respectively. Survival assessment was made with univariate and multivariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The three defined groups were significantly different for all analysed variables except for age, sex ratio and pathological subtype. In univariate analysis: ECOG performance status, symptom classification, tumour size, TNM stage and grade, adrenal, perinephric fat or vein invasion were significant prognostic factors (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, symptom classification, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade and perinephric fat invasion remained independent prognostic factors (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The proposed classification merits further validation through multi-institutional studies before integrating it in further prognosis algorithms.
Authors: Aldo René Hurtarte Sandoval; Bryan Josué Flores Robles; Robert Francis Andrus; David Alejandro Yaxcal Chon Journal: BMJ Case Rep Date: 2014-10-21
Authors: Justin D Oake; Premal Patel; Luke T Lavallée; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Olli Saarela; Laurence Klotz; Ronald B Moore; Anil Kapoor; Antonio Finelli; Ricardo A Rendon; Jun Kawakami; Alan I So; Darrel E Drachenberg Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Attila Szendroi; Adám Tabák; Peter Riesz; Miklós Szucs; Peter Nyírády; Attila Majoros; Gabriel Haas; Imre Romics Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: M Gigante; A Blasi; A Loverre; V Mancini; M Battaglia; F P Selvaggi; E Maiorano; A Napoli; G Castellano; W J Storkus; L Gesualdo; E Ranieri Journal: Mol Immunol Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 4.407
Authors: Pierre I Karakiewicz; Claudio Jeldres; Nazareno Suardi; George C Hutterer; Paul Perrotte; Umberto Capitanio; Vincenzo Ficarra; Luca Cindolo; Alexandre de La Taille; Jacques Tostain; Peter F Mulders; Laurent Salomon; Richard Zigeuner; Luigi Schips; Denis Chautard; Antoine Valeri; Eric Lechevallier; Jean-Luc Descots; Herve Lang; Arnaud Mejean; Gregory Verhoest; Jean-Jacques Patard Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.862