PURPOSE: We identified prognostic factors of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) types 1 (PRCC1) and 2 (PRCC2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1985 and 1998, 759 patients underwent surgery for renal cell carcinoma, of whom 88 (11.6%), including 69 males and 19 females with a mean age of 61.8 years (range 21.3 to 85.9) who had PRCC. Multifocality was defined as 2 or greater tumors separated by 10 mm or greater. Small basophilic cells defined PRCC1 and large eosinophilic cells defined PRCC2. Mean followup in 79 cases was 71.1 months (range 1 to 196.6). Survival rates were calculated and statistical analyses were done. RESULTS: The 88 patients underwent radical nephrectomy (65) or conservative surgery (28, that is elective in 17 and imperative in 11). Mean tumor size was 62 mm (range 10 to 190) and 41% of lesions were multifocal, independent of PRCC size, stage, grade or type. Comparing the 56 PRCC1s (63.6%) to the 32 PRCC2s (36.4%) showed that PRCC2 grade and stage were significantly higher (p = 0.024 and 0.025, respectively). A total of 51 patients (64.6%) remained relapse-free and progression-free. Local relapses occurred only after imperative conservative surgery in 2 cases (2.5%). Of the 26 deaths 15 (4 PRCC 1 and 11 PRCC 2) were tumor associated. Mean survival was 26.6 months (range 1 to 112.5). The overall 10-year survival rate was 73% with PRCC1 and PRCC2 10-year rates of 80% and 59%, respectively (p <0.003). Univariate analysis identified stage (p <0.0001), grade (p <0.0001) and histological type (p <0.003) as prognostic factors. Multivariate analysis retained stage (p = 0.006) and grade (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: PRCC multifocality was not associated with stage, grade or histological type and it seems not to be an argument against conservative surgery. Univariate analysis of PRCC prognostic factors identified stage, grade and histological type but the latter was not retained on multivariate analysis.
PURPOSE: We identified prognostic factors of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) types 1 (PRCC1) and 2 (PRCC2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1985 and 1998, 759 patients underwent surgery for renal cell carcinoma, of whom 88 (11.6%), including 69 males and 19 females with a mean age of 61.8 years (range 21.3 to 85.9) who had PRCC. Multifocality was defined as 2 or greater tumors separated by 10 mm or greater. Small basophilic cells defined PRCC1 and large eosinophilic cells defined PRCC2. Mean followup in 79 cases was 71.1 months (range 1 to 196.6). Survival rates were calculated and statistical analyses were done. RESULTS: The 88 patients underwent radical nephrectomy (65) or conservative surgery (28, that is elective in 17 and imperative in 11). Mean tumor size was 62 mm (range 10 to 190) and 41% of lesions were multifocal, independent of PRCC size, stage, grade or type. Comparing the 56 PRCC1s (63.6%) to the 32 PRCC2s (36.4%) showed that PRCC2 grade and stage were significantly higher (p = 0.024 and 0.025, respectively). A total of 51 patients (64.6%) remained relapse-free and progression-free. Local relapses occurred only after imperative conservative surgery in 2 cases (2.5%). Of the 26 deaths 15 (4 PRCC 1 and 11 PRCC 2) were tumor associated. Mean survival was 26.6 months (range 1 to 112.5). The overall 10-year survival rate was 73% with PRCC1 and PRCC2 10-year rates of 80% and 59%, respectively (p <0.003). Univariate analysis identified stage (p <0.0001), grade (p <0.0001) and histological type (p <0.003) as prognostic factors. Multivariate analysis retained stage (p = 0.006) and grade (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS:PRCC multifocality was not associated with stage, grade or histological type and it seems not to be an argument against conservative surgery. Univariate analysis of PRCC prognostic factors identified stage, grade and histological type but the latter was not retained on multivariate analysis.
Authors: T Urge; O Hes; J Ferda; Z Chudácek; V Eret; M Michal; M Brunelli; G Martignoni; M Hora Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-05-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ivan Pedrosa; Mary T Chou; Long Ngo; Ronaldo H Baroni; Elizabeth M Genega; Laura Galaburda; William C DeWolf; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rong Lu; Payal Kapur; Bijay S Jaiswal; Tao Wang; Raquibul Hannan; Ze Zhang; Ivan Pedrosa; Jason J Luke; He Zhang; Leonard D Goldstein; Qurratulain Yousuf; Yi-Feng Gu; Tiffani McKenzie; Allison Joyce; Min S Kim; Xinlei Wang; Danni Luo; Oreoluwa Onabolu; Christina Stevens; Zhiqun Xie; Mingyi Chen; Alexander Filatenkov; Jose Torrealba; Xin Luo; Wenbin Guo; Jingxuan He; Eric Stawiski; Zora Modrusan; Steffen Durinck; Somasekar Seshagiri; James Brugarolas Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: S Waalkes; F C Roos; H Eggers; S Schumacher; M Janssen; G Wegener; J W Thüroff; R Hofmann; M Schrader; M A Kuczyk; A J Schrader Journal: Urologe A Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Rodrigo A Ledezma; Edris Negron; Gladell P Paner; Chris Rjepaj; Danny Lascano; Mohammed Haseebuddin; Pankaj Dangle; Arieh L Shalhav; Henry Crist; Jay D Raman; G Joel DeCastro; Lara Harik; Monika Paroder; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov; Scott E Eggener Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Daniel P Nguyen; Emily A Vertosick; Renato B Corradi; Antoni Vilaseca; Nicole E Benfante; Karim A Touijer; Daniel D Sjoberg; Paul Russo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 3.498