PURPOSE: Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma is a rare entity. Recent surgical series of the condition showed conflicting results. We used an American population based data set to compare the survival experience of patients with collecting duct vs clear cell renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cases of collecting duct and clear cell renal cell carcinoma were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program (2001 to 2005). Demographic and pathological characteristics at diagnosis were compared. Differences in disease specific survival were compared with univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 160 collecting duct renal cell carcinoma cases were present in the database from 2001 to 2005. In that time 33,252 clear cell renal cell carcinoma cases were diagnosed. Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma was more common in black than in white patients (23% vs 9%, p <0.001). Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma was more commonly T3+ than T2/T1 (33% vs 18%, p <0.001) and metastatic than regional/local (28% vs 17%, p = 0.001). Nephrectomy rates were similar (84% and 78%, p = 0.06). The 3-year disease specific survival rate was 58% and 79% for collecting duct and clear cell renal cell carcinoma, respectively. On multivariate analysis there was an increased mortality risk in patients with collecting duct vs clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.72-3.39, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma those with collecting duct renal cell carcinoma have higher stage and are more often black. Even after adjusting for demographic, surgical and pathological factors disease specific survival is significantly worse in patients with collecting duct rather than clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Further research into the biology of this rare tumor is required to explain these results.
PURPOSE: Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma is a rare entity. Recent surgical series of the condition showed conflicting results. We used an American population based data set to compare the survival experience of patients with collecting duct vs clear cell renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cases of collecting duct and clear cell renal cell carcinoma were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program (2001 to 2005). Demographic and pathological characteristics at diagnosis were compared. Differences in disease specific survival were compared with univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 160 collecting duct renal cell carcinoma cases were present in the database from 2001 to 2005. In that time 33,252 clear cell renal cell carcinoma cases were diagnosed. Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma was more common in black than in white patients (23% vs 9%, p <0.001). Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma was more commonly T3+ than T2/T1 (33% vs 18%, p <0.001) and metastatic than regional/local (28% vs 17%, p = 0.001). Nephrectomy rates were similar (84% and 78%, p = 0.06). The 3-year disease specific survival rate was 58% and 79% for collecting duct and clear cell renal cell carcinoma, respectively. On multivariate analysis there was an increased mortality risk in patients with collecting duct vs clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.72-3.39, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma those with collecting duct renal cell carcinoma have higher stage and are more often black. Even after adjusting for demographic, surgical and pathological factors disease specific survival is significantly worse in patients with collecting duct rather than clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Further research into the biology of this rare tumor is required to explain these results.
Authors: Debby Chao; Amnon Zisman; Allan J Pantuck; Barbara J Gitlitz; Stephen J Freedland; Jonathan W Said; Robert A Figlin; Arie S Belldegrun Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew I Milowsky; Alyssa Rosmarin; Satish K Tickoo; Nicholas Papanicolaou; David M Nanus Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrea Vecchione; Tommaso Prayer Galetti; Marina Gardiman; Hideshi Ishii; Enrico Giarnieri; Francesco Pagano; Leonard G Gomella; Carlo M Croce; Raffaele Baffa Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2004-09-09 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Joshua E Logan; Edward N Rampersaud; Geoffrey A Sonn; Karim Chamie; Arie S Belldegrun; Allan J Pantuck; Dennis J Slamon; Fairooz F Kabbinavar Journal: Rev Urol Date: 2012
Authors: Jeffrey G Himmelman; Jennifer Merrimen; Kara Matheson; Chris Theriault; Lori A Wood Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jianmin Wang; Antonios Papanicolau-Sengos; Sreenivasulu Chintala; Lei Wei; Biao Liu; Qiang Hu; Kiersten Marie Miles; Jeffrey M Conroy; Sean T Glenn; Manuela Costantini; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Sabina Signoretti; Toni Choueiri; Michele Gallucci; Steno Sentinelli; Vito M Fazio; Maria Luana Poeta; Song Liu; Carl Morrison; Roberto Pili Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-05-24
Authors: Frank Becker; Kerstin Junker; Martin Parr; Arndt Hartmann; Susanne Füssel; Marieta Toma; Rainer Grobholz; Thomas Pflugmann; Bernd Wullich; Arne Strauss; Carl Ludwig Behnes; Wolfgang Otto; Michael Stöckle; Volker Jung Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 3.240