Literature DB >> 17070225

Extranodal extension in regional lymph nodes is associated with outcome in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Haytham H Dimashkieh1, Christine M Lohse, Michael L Blute, Eugene D Kwon, Bradley C Leibovich, John C Cheville.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The 2002 American Joint Committee on Cancer pN classification for renal cell carcinoma is based on the number of positive regional lymph nodes. We examined the associations of pathological features of lymph node metastases with patient outcome to improve the prognostic accuracy of the current classification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the records of 2,076 patients treated with radical nephrectomy for unilateral, sporadic pM0 renal cell carcinoma between 1970 and 2000. There were 34 patients with metastasis in a single regional lymph node (pN1) and 35 with metastases in more than 1 lymph node (pN2). Pathological features of lymph node metastases, including the number and percent of positive lymph nodes, total number of lymph nodes removed, grade, necrosis, extranodal extension, and largest dimension and surface area of metastases were determined by 2 urological pathologists (HHD and JCC).
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant association between the pN classification and death from renal cell carcinoma (pN2 vs pN1 RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.79, p = 0.846). However, patients with extranodal extension were twice as likely to die of renal cell carcinoma than patients in whom metastases did not extend outside of the lymph node capsule (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.45, p = 0.010). The 5-year cancer specific survival rate was 18% and 35% in patients with and without extranodal extension, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that a pN classification based on the presence or absence of lymph node metastases with a notation regarding the presence or absence of extranodal extension represents a significant improvement in the prognostic accuracy of the current pN classification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17070225     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  7 in total

Review 1.  The role of lymphadenectomy in the management of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Glen W Barrisford; Boris Gershman; Michael L Blute
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Validation of the 2009 TNM Classification for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Comparison with the 2002 TNM Classification by Concordance Index.

Authors:  Chunwoo Lee; Dalsan You; Junsoo Park; In Gab Jeong; Cheryn Song; Jun Hyuk Hong; Hanjong Ahn; Choung-Soo Kim
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2011-08-22

3.  Clinical and prognostic factors for renal parenchymal, pelvis, and ureter cancers in SEER registries: collaborative stage data collection system, version 2.

Authors:  Sean F Altekruse; Lois Dickie; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Mei-Chin Hsieh; Manxia Wu; Richard Lee; Scott Delacroix
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  The role of lymph node dissection in renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Brian F Chapin; Scott E Delacroix; Christopher G Wood
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  Risk stratification and prognostication of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Antonio Galfano; Giacomo Novara; Massimo Iafrate; Matteo Brunelli; Silvia Secco; Stefano Cavalleri; Guido Martignoni; Walter Artibani
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-04-08       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Staging of renal cell carcinoma: Current concepts.

Authors:  John S Lam; Tobias Klatte; Alberto Breda
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009 Oct-Dec

Review 7.  Prognostic markers in renal cell carcinoma: A focus on the 'mammalian target of rapamycin' pathway.

Authors:  Ramy F Youssef; Nicholas G Cost; Oussama M Darwish; Vitaly Margulis
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-04-09
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.