Yushi Zhang1, Hongyan Yu, Hanzhong Li. 1. Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujing, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the survival and the associated factors affecting the prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in China with a sufficiently large sample size. METHODS: Clinical data with complete follow-up of 1326 RCC patients were successfully obtained. Progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were calculated, survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were served to estimate the prognostic significance of each variables. RESULTS: The median length of follow-up was 43.55 months (25-75 %, 25.47-68.75 months). During follow-up, 147 patients developed RCC-related progression, with a median PFS of 18.2 months (25-75 %, 7.50-47.27); 64 patients died from RCC-related progression, with a median CSS of 27.67 months (25-75 %, 14.10-58.53). For RCC patients in T1 stage, 3-, 5-, 8-, and 10-year CSS rates of patients receiving nephron-sparing nephrectomy were 99.33, 98.21, 97.40, and 97.40 %, respectively, which were significantly higher than radical nephrectomy patients (97.88, 96.28, 95.09, and 88.58 %, respectively). Cox proportional hazards regression model showed that tumor N stage, signs of lung metastasis (such as cough and hemoptysis), signs of bone metastasis (such as bone pain and fracture), pathological subtype of RCC, microscopic sarcomatoid change, and progression were prognosis factors for Chinese RCC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor stage, nephrectomy type, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, pathological subtype, sarcomatoid change, and type of progression were important risk factors for RCC. For T1 stage RCC patients, nephron-sparing nephrectomy showed better CSS than radical nephrectomy, which may guide the doctors and patients in their choices of surgical procedures.
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the survival and the associated factors affecting the prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in China with a sufficiently large sample size. METHODS: Clinical data with complete follow-up of 1326 RCCpatients were successfully obtained. Progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were calculated, survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were served to estimate the prognostic significance of each variables. RESULTS: The median length of follow-up was 43.55 months (25-75 %, 25.47-68.75 months). During follow-up, 147 patients developed RCC-related progression, with a median PFS of 18.2 months (25-75 %, 7.50-47.27); 64 patients died from RCC-related progression, with a median CSS of 27.67 months (25-75 %, 14.10-58.53). For RCCpatients in T1 stage, 3-, 5-, 8-, and 10-year CSS rates of patients receiving nephron-sparing nephrectomy were 99.33, 98.21, 97.40, and 97.40 %, respectively, which were significantly higher than radical nephrectomy patients (97.88, 96.28, 95.09, and 88.58 %, respectively). Cox proportional hazards regression model showed that tumor N stage, signs of lung metastasis (such as cough and hemoptysis), signs of bone metastasis (such as bone pain and fracture), pathological subtype of RCC, microscopic sarcomatoid change, and progression were prognosis factors for Chinese RCCpatients. CONCLUSIONS:Tumor stage, nephrectomy type, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, pathological subtype, sarcomatoid change, and type of progression were important risk factors for RCC. For T1 stage RCCpatients, nephron-sparing nephrectomy showed better CSS than radical nephrectomy, which may guide the doctors and patients in their choices of surgical procedures.
Authors: Grant D Stewart; W Jensen Ang; Alexander Laird; David A Tolley; Antony C P Riddick; S Alan McNeill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Marco Bianchi; Andreas Becker; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Firas Abdollah; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-04-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Christopher J Long; Daniel J Canter; Alexander Kutikov; Tianyu Li; Jay Simhan; Marc Smaldone; Ervin Teper; Rosalia Viterbo; Stephen A Boorjian; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Max Kates; Phillip M Pierorazio; Elias S Hyams; Michael A Gorin; Mark W Ball; Sam B Bhayani; Xuan Hui; Carol B Thompson; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Urology Date: 2013-11-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: A Laird; K C C Choy; H Delaney; M L Cutress; K M O'Connor; D A Tolley; S A McNeill; G D Stewart; A C P Riddick Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ryan P Kopp; Reza Mehrazin; Kerrin L Palazzi; Michael A Liss; Ramzi Jabaji; Hossein S Mirheydar; Hak J Lee; Nishant Patel; Fuad Elkhoury; Anthony L Patterson; Ithaar H Derweesh Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Frank Kunath; Stefanie Schmidt; Laura-Maria Krabbe; Arkadiusz Miernik; Philipp Dahm; Anne Cleves; Mario Walther; Nils Kroeger Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-09