PURPOSE: We validate the prognostic value of a symptom based classification (S classification) in a multi-institutional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2,242 patients from 5 European centers were included in this study. Based on symptoms at diagnosis, patients were stratified into 3 groups of S1-asymptomatic tumors, S2-tumors with local symptoms and S3-tumors with systemic symptoms. Variables such as age, gender, tumor size, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, perinephric fat, renal vein and adrenal invasion were also considered for prognostic value. The end point of the study was cancer specific survival. Survival assessment was made with univariate and multivariate analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the patients 1,018 (45.4%) were classified as S1, 865 (38.6%) S2 and 339 (16.0%) S3. The S classification correlated to tumor stage, grade and ECOG (p <0.001). On univariate analysis ECOG performance status, S classification, tumor size, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade, and adrenal, perinephric fat or vein invasion were significant prognostic factors (p <0.001). The S classification provided a significant prognostic stratification in the aggregate as well at each of the 5 centers. On multivariate analysis the S classification, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade, and perinephric fat and renal vein invasion remained independent prognostic factors (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that it is possible to graduate symptoms for a prognostic purpose. The proposed symptom score should be evaluated for its integration in prognostic algorithms.
PURPOSE: We validate the prognostic value of a symptom based classification (S classification) in a multi-institutional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2,242 patients from 5 European centers were included in this study. Based on symptoms at diagnosis, patients were stratified into 3 groups of S1-asymptomatic tumors, S2-tumors with local symptoms and S3-tumors with systemic symptoms. Variables such as age, gender, tumor size, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, perinephric fat, renal vein and adrenal invasion were also considered for prognostic value. The end point of the study was cancer specific survival. Survival assessment was made with univariate and multivariate analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the patients 1,018 (45.4%) were classified as S1, 865 (38.6%) S2 and 339 (16.0%) S3. The S classification correlated to tumor stage, grade and ECOG (p <0.001). On univariate analysis ECOG performance status, S classification, tumor size, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade, and adrenal, perinephric fat or vein invasion were significant prognostic factors (p <0.001). The S classification provided a significant prognostic stratification in the aggregate as well at each of the 5 centers. On multivariate analysis the S classification, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade, and perinephric fat and renal vein invasion remained independent prognostic factors (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that it is possible to graduate symptoms for a prognostic purpose. The proposed symptom score should be evaluated for its integration in prognostic algorithms.
Authors: Wassim Kassouf; Robert Siemens; Christopher Morash; Louis Lacombe; Michael Jewett; Larry Goldenberg; Joseph Chin; Michael Chetner; Christopher G Wood; Simon Tanguay; Armen G Aprikian Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 1.862
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: Wassim Kassouf; Leonardo L Monteiro; Darrel E Drachenberg; Adrian S Fairey; Antonio Finelli; Anil Kapoor; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Michael J Leveridge; Nicholas E Power; Frederic Pouliot; Ricardo A Rendon; Robert Sabbagh; Alan I So; Simon Tanguay; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Christian Beisland; Gigja Guðbrandsdottir; Lars A R Reisæter; Leif Bostad; Karin M Hjelle Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Taekmin Kwon; Jae-Lyun Lee; Jeong Kon Kim; Dalsan You; In Gab Jeong; Cheryn Song; Hanjong Ahn; Choung-Soo Kim; Jun Hyuk Hong Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 4.553
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