Brian R Winters1, John L Gore2, Sarah K Holt2, Jonathan D Harper2, Daniel W Lin3, Jonathan L Wright3. 1. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: wintersb@uw.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cystic renal cell carcinoma (cystic RCC) is thought to carry an improved prognosis relative to clear cell RCC (CCRCC); however, this is based on small case series. We used a population-based tumor registry to compare clinicopathologic features and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) of cystic RCC with those of CCRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for all patients diagnosed and treated for cystic RCC and CCRCC between 2001 and 2010. Clinical and pathologic factors were compared using t tests and chi-square tests as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis compared CSM differences between cystic RCC and CCRCC. RESULTS: A total of 678 patients with cystic RCC and 46,677 with CCRCC were identified. The mean follow-up duration was 52 and 40 months, respectively. When compared with CCRCC patients, those with cystic RCC were younger (mean age 58 vs. 61 y, P < 0.001), more commonly black (22% vs. 9%, P < 0.001), and female (45% vs. 41%, P = 0.02). Cystic RCCs were more commonly T1a tumors (66% vs. 55%, P < 0.001), well differentiated (33% vs. 16%, P < 0.001), and smaller (mean size = 3.8 vs. 4.5 cm, P < 0.001). Cystic RCC was associated with a reduction in CSM when compared with CCRCC (P = 0.002). In a subset analysis, this reduction in CSM was seen only for those with T1b/T2 tumors (P = 0.01) but not for those with T1a RCCs lesions (P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest series of cystic RCC and corroborate the findings of improved CSM when compared with CCRCC for larger tumors; however, no difference was noted in smaller tumors, suggesting that tumor biology becomes more relevant to prognosis with increasing size. These data may suggest a role for active surveillance in appropriately selected patients with small, cystic renal masses.
INTRODUCTION:Cystic renal cell carcinoma (cystic RCC) is thought to carry an improved prognosis relative to clear cell RCC (CCRCC); however, this is based on small case series. We used a population-based tumor registry to compare clinicopathologic features and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) of cystic RCC with those of CCRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for all patients diagnosed and treated for cystic RCC and CCRCC between 2001 and 2010. Clinical and pathologic factors were compared using t tests and chi-square tests as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis compared CSM differences between cystic RCC and CCRCC. RESULTS: A total of 678 patients with cystic RCC and 46,677 with CCRCC were identified. The mean follow-up duration was 52 and 40 months, respectively. When compared with CCRCC patients, those with cystic RCC were younger (mean age 58 vs. 61 y, P < 0.001), more commonly black (22% vs. 9%, P < 0.001), and female (45% vs. 41%, P = 0.02). Cystic RCCs were more commonly T1a tumors (66% vs. 55%, P < 0.001), well differentiated (33% vs. 16%, P < 0.001), and smaller (mean size = 3.8 vs. 4.5 cm, P < 0.001). Cystic RCC was associated with a reduction in CSM when compared with CCRCC (P = 0.002). In a subset analysis, this reduction in CSM was seen only for those with T1b/T2 tumors (P = 0.01) but not for those with T1a RCCs lesions (P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest series of cystic RCC and corroborate the findings of improved CSM when compared with CCRCC for larger tumors; however, no difference was noted in smaller tumors, suggesting that tumor biology becomes more relevant to prognosis with increasing size. These data may suggest a role for active surveillance in appropriately selected patients with small, cystic renal masses.
Authors: S E Eggener; J N Rubenstein; N D Smith; R B Nadler; J Kontak; R C Flanigan; W B Waters; M Picken; S C Campbell; J R Rubenstein Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ken-Ryu Han; Nicolette K Janzen; Valerie C McWhorter; Hyung L Kim; Allan J Pantuck; Amnon Zisman; Robert A Figlin; Frederick J Dorey; Jonathan W Said; Arie S Belldegrun Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: F A Corica; K A Iczkowski; L Cheng; H Zincke; M L Blute; A Wendel; T J Sebo; R Neumann; D G Bostwick Journal: J Urol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Patrick O Richard; Philippe D Violette; Michael A S Jewett; Frederic Pouliot; Michael Leveridge; Alan So; Thomas F Whelan; Ricardo Rendon; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Mahyar Kashan; Mazyar Ghanaat; Andreas M Hötker; Cihan Duzgol; Alejandro Sanchez; Renzo G DiNatale; Kyle A Blum; Maria F Becerra; Brandon J Manley; Jozefina Casuscelli; Michael Chiok; Jonathan A Coleman; Paul Russo; Satish K Tickoo; Oguz Akin; A Ari Hakimi Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stuart G Silverman; Ivan Pedrosa; James H Ellis; Nicole M Hindman; Nicola Schieda; Andrew D Smith; Erick M Remer; Atul B Shinagare; Nicole E Curci; Steven S Raman; Shane A Wells; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Zhen J Wang; Hersh Chandarana; Matthew S Davenport Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Félix Couture; Antonio Finelli; Amélie Tétu; Bimal Bhindi; Rodney H Breau; Anil Kapoor; Wassim Kassouf; Luke Lavallée; Simon Tanguay; Philippe D Violette; Patrick O Richard Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Satheesh Krishna; Nicola Schieda; Ivan Pedrosa; Nicole Hindman; Ronaldo H Baroni; Stuart G Silverman; Matthew S Davenport Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 4.813