Hui-Ming Jiang1,2, Jin-Huan Wei1, Zhi-Ling Zhang3, Yong Fang1, Bang-Fen Zhou1, Zhen-Hua Chen1, Jun Lu1, Bing Liao1, Fang-Jian Zhou3, Jun-Hang Luo4, Wei Chen5. 1. Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58, Zhong Shan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Urology, Meizhou People's Hospital, No. 63, Huang Tang Road, Meizhou, 514031, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Urology, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58, Zhong Shan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. luojunh@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 5. Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58, Zhong Shan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. chenw3@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) or clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is associated with better survival. We conducted a clinical-based cohort study and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic role of histology between chRCC and ccRCC. METHODS: A cohort of 1540 patients (166 with chRCC and 1374 with ccRCC) were selected from Sun Yat-sen University and The Cancer Genome Atlas databases. The clinicopathological parameters and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with chRCC and those with ccRCC. For the meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for studies comparing OS or cancer-specific survival (CSS) between chRCC and ccRCC. RESULTS: The cohort study revealed that patients with chRCC were younger (median 52 vs. 55 years, P < 0.001), were more commonly female (47.0 vs. 33.0%, P < 0.001), and had a larger tumor size (mean 7.1 vs. 5.9 cm, P < 0.001), and they had a lower stage compared with those with ccRCC. Five-year OS rates for chRCC and ccRCC were 90.3 and 75.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). We found significantly better survival for chRCC in stratification analysis by age, sex, tumor size, and stage. Similar results were observed on both univariate [hazard ratio (HR), 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.55, P < 0.001] and multivariate analyses (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.23-0.79, P = 0.006). Ten studies were included in our meta-analysis. Eight of them provided data on univariate analysis. The pooled HR was statistically significant for OS (pooled HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.30-0.79, P = 0.004) and CSS (pooled HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37-0.64, P < 0.001). Seven studies reported the HR on multivariate analysis. The pooled HR was also statistically significant for OS (pooled HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.77, P < 0.001) and CSS (pooled HR 0.72; 95 % CI 0.57-0.90, P = 0.003). These data indicate that patients with chRCC had better outcomes than those with ccRCC. CONCLUSIONS: Our large cohort study and meta-analysis confirmed that chRCC had better survival than ccRCC.
BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) or clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is associated with better survival. We conducted a clinical-based cohort study and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic role of histology between chRCC and ccRCC. METHODS: A cohort of 1540 patients (166 with chRCC and 1374 with ccRCC) were selected from Sun Yat-sen University and The Cancer Genome Atlas databases. The clinicopathological parameters and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with chRCC and those with ccRCC. For the meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for studies comparing OS or cancer-specific survival (CSS) between chRCC and ccRCC. RESULTS: The cohort study revealed that patients with chRCC were younger (median 52 vs. 55 years, P < 0.001), were more commonly female (47.0 vs. 33.0%, P < 0.001), and had a larger tumor size (mean 7.1 vs. 5.9 cm, P < 0.001), and they had a lower stage compared with those with ccRCC. Five-year OS rates for chRCC and ccRCC were 90.3 and 75.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). We found significantly better survival for chRCC in stratification analysis by age, sex, tumor size, and stage. Similar results were observed on both univariate [hazard ratio (HR), 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.55, P < 0.001] and multivariate analyses (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.23-0.79, P = 0.006). Ten studies were included in our meta-analysis. Eight of them provided data on univariate analysis. The pooled HR was statistically significant for OS (pooled HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.30-0.79, P = 0.004) and CSS (pooled HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37-0.64, P < 0.001). Seven studies reported the HR on multivariate analysis. The pooled HR was also statistically significant for OS (pooled HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.77, P < 0.001) and CSS (pooled HR 0.72; 95 % CI 0.57-0.90, P = 0.003). These data indicate that patients with chRCC had better outcomes than those with ccRCC. CONCLUSIONS: Our large cohort study and meta-analysis confirmed that chRCC had better survival than ccRCC.
Authors: Antonio A Ornellas; Dennyson M Andrade; Paulo Ornellas; Aristóteles Wisnescky; Aline B de Santos Schwindt Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Maxime Crépel; Hendrik Isbarn; Umberto Capitanio; Daniel Liberman; Claudio Jeldres; Maxine Sun; Shahrokh F Shariat; Hugues Widmer; Philippe Arjane; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Jean-Jacques Patard; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Urology Date: 2009-07-22 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Tobias Klatte; Ken-ryu Han; Jonathan W Said; Malte Böhm; Ernst Peter Allhoff; Fairooz F Kabbinavar; Arie S Belldegrun; Allan J Pantuck Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Dragomir P Zubac; Leif Bostad; Charlotta Gestblom; Björn Kihl; Tomas Seidal; Tore Wentzel-Larsen; August M Bakke Journal: Scand J Urol Nephrol Date: 2007
Authors: Matthew D Katz; Maria F Serrano; Peter A Humphrey; Robert L Grubb; Ted A Skolarus; Feng Gao; Adam S Kibel Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Joana B Neves; Leyre Vanaclocha Saiz; Saeed Dabestani; Maxine G B Tran; Axel Bex; Yasmin Abu-Ghanem; Marta Marchetti; My-Anh Tran-Dang; Soha El-Sheikh; Ravi Barod; Christian Beisland; Umberto Capitanio; David Cullen; Tobias Klatte; Börje Ljungberg; Faiz Mumtaz; Prasad Patki; Grant D Stewart Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 4.226