BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are at risk of developing renal tumours. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinical, pathologic, and outcome features of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) in ESRD patients and in patients from the general population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four French university departments of urology participated in this retrospective study. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated according to current European Association of Urology guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, symptoms, tumour staging and grading, histologic subtype, and outcome were recorded in a unique database. Categoric and continuous variables were compared by using chi-square and student statistical analyses. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study included 1250 RCC patients: 303 with ESRD and 947 from the general population. In the ESRD patients, age at diagnosis was younger (55 ± 12 yr vs 62 ± 12 yr); mean tumour size was smaller (3.7 ± 2.6 cm vs 7.3 ± 3.8 cm); asymptomatic (87% vs 44%), low-grade (68% vs 42%), and papillary tumours were more frequent (37% vs 7%); and poor performance status (PS; 24% vs 37%) and advanced T categories (≥ 3) were more rare (10% vs 42%). Consistently, nodal invasion (3% vs 12%) and distant metastases (2% vs 15%) occurred less frequently in ESRD patients. After a median follow-up of 33 mo (range: 1-299 mo), 13 ESRD patients (4.3%), and 261 general population patients (27.6%) had died from cancer. In univariate analysis, histologic subtype, symptoms at diagnosis, poor PS, advanced TNM stage, high Fuhrman grade, large tumour size, and non-ESRD diagnosis context were adverse predictors for survival. However, only PS, TNM stage, and Fuhrman grade remained independent CSS predictors in multivariate analysis. The limitation of this study is related to the retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: RCC arising in native kidneys of ESRD patients seems to exhibit many favourable clinical, pathologic, and outcome features compared with those diagnosed in patients from the general population.
BACKGROUND:Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are at risk of developing renal tumours. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinical, pathologic, and outcome features of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) in ESRDpatients and in patients from the general population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four French university departments of urology participated in this retrospective study. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated according to current European Association of Urology guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, symptoms, tumour staging and grading, histologic subtype, and outcome were recorded in a unique database. Categoric and continuous variables were compared by using chi-square and student statistical analyses. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study included 1250 RCCpatients: 303 with ESRD and 947 from the general population. In the ESRDpatients, age at diagnosis was younger (55 ± 12 yr vs 62 ± 12 yr); mean tumour size was smaller (3.7 ± 2.6 cm vs 7.3 ± 3.8 cm); asymptomatic (87% vs 44%), low-grade (68% vs 42%), and papillary tumours were more frequent (37% vs 7%); and poor performance status (PS; 24% vs 37%) and advanced T categories (≥ 3) were more rare (10% vs 42%). Consistently, nodal invasion (3% vs 12%) and distant metastases (2% vs 15%) occurred less frequently in ESRDpatients. After a median follow-up of 33 mo (range: 1-299 mo), 13 ESRDpatients (4.3%), and 261 general population patients (27.6%) had died from cancer. In univariate analysis, histologic subtype, symptoms at diagnosis, poor PS, advanced TNM stage, high Fuhrman grade, large tumour size, and non-ESRD diagnosis context were adverse predictors for survival. However, only PS, TNM stage, and Fuhrman grade remained independent CSS predictors in multivariate analysis. The limitation of this study is related to the retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS:RCC arising in native kidneys of ESRDpatients seems to exhibit many favourable clinical, pathologic, and outcome features compared with those diagnosed in patients from the general population.
Authors: Aditya V Shetty; Marc R Matrana; Bradley J Atkinson; Amber L Flaherty; Eric Jonasch; Nizar M Tannir Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Alberto Breda; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Giuseppe Luccarelli; Oscar Rodriguez-Faba; Luis Guirado; Carmen Facundo; Carlo Bettocchi; Loreto Gesualdo; Giuseppe Castellano; Giuseppe Grandaliano; Michele Battaglia; Juan Palou; Pasquale Ditonno; Humberto Villavicencio Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Lin Li; Wei Ling Lau; Connie M Rhee; Kevin Harley; Csaba P Kovesdy; John J Sim; Steve Jacobsen; Anthony Chang; Jaime Landman; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Ilaria Lucca; Michela de Martino; Sebastian L Hofbauer; Nura Zamani; Shahrokh F Shariat; Tobias Klatte Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.226