Sebastian Frees1, Mohammed M Kamal2, Lisa Knoechlein3, Robert Bell4, Christopher Ziesel3, Andreas Neisius3, Christian Thomas3, Walburgis Brenner3, Wolfgang Jäger3, Joachim W Thüroff3, Frederik C Roos5. 1. Department of Urology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany; Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2. Department of Urology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany; Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura, Egypt. 3. Department of Urology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. 4. Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 5. Department of Urology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: frederik.roos@gmx.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate prognostic parameters for the oncological outcome of patients treated for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) in comparison with patients treated for clear cell RCC (ccRCC) using propensity score matching for survival analysis. METHODS: From 1969 to 2009, we identified 1010 from 3567 patients with RCC. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate for histological subtypes including 109 chRCC and 901 ccRCC. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression was used to analyze prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in patient characteristics among histological subgroups. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 61 months (range 0-289). chRCC showed longer OS (5 year, 90.1%; 10 year, 74.2%; 15 year, 61.4%) and CSS (94.2%, 89.7%, 89.7%) compared with ccRCC (OS 75.7%, 54.9%, 46.1% and CSS 84.7%, 75.4%, 72.2%; P = .002). Multivariate Cox regression revealed histology as a significant prognostic factor. Propensity score matching showed a difference in 72.4% (OS) and 87.2% (CSS) of matching attempts confirming the significant impact of histology. Univariate Cox regression showed nephron sparing surgery, no metastasis and no symptoms at presentation, age <65, eosinophilic features, low American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index to be beneficial for CSS. Only age at surgery, metastasis at presentation, and American Society of Anesthesiologists and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were significant factors for OS in chRCC patients. CONCLUSION: ChRCC appears to have a favorable outcome compared with ccRCC. Even after adjustment for differences in characteristics known to have an influence on survival by propensity score matching, histology remains a significant prognostic factor.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate prognostic parameters for the oncological outcome of patients treated for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) in comparison with patients treated for clear cell RCC (ccRCC) using propensity score matching for survival analysis. METHODS: From 1969 to 2009, we identified 1010 from 3567 patients with RCC. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate for histological subtypes including 109 chRCC and 901 ccRCC. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression was used to analyze prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in patient characteristics among histological subgroups. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 61 months (range 0-289). chRCC showed longer OS (5 year, 90.1%; 10 year, 74.2%; 15 year, 61.4%) and CSS (94.2%, 89.7%, 89.7%) compared with ccRCC (OS 75.7%, 54.9%, 46.1% and CSS 84.7%, 75.4%, 72.2%; P = .002). Multivariate Cox regression revealed histology as a significant prognostic factor. Propensity score matching showed a difference in 72.4% (OS) and 87.2% (CSS) of matching attempts confirming the significant impact of histology. Univariate Cox regression showed nephron sparing surgery, no metastasis and no symptoms at presentation, age <65, eosinophilic features, low American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index to be beneficial for CSS. Only age at surgery, metastasis at presentation, and American Society of Anesthesiologists and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were significant factors for OS in chRCC patients. CONCLUSION: ChRCC appears to have a favorable outcome compared with ccRCC. Even after adjustment for differences in characteristics known to have an influence on survival by propensity score matching, histology remains a significant prognostic factor.
Authors: Jozefina Casuscelli; Maria F Becerra; Kenneth Seier; Brandon J Manley; Nicole Benfante; Almedina Redzematovic; Christian G Stief; James J Hsieh; Satish K Tickoo; Victor E Reuter; Jonathan A Coleman; Paul Russo; Irina Ostrovnaya; A Ari Hakimi Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Levente Kuthi; Alex Jenei; Adrienn Hajdu; István Németh; Zoltán Varga; Zoltán Bajory; László Pajor; Béla Iványi Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.201
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
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Michael A Gorin; Lilja B Solnes; Mark W Ball; Ajuni Choudhary; Phillip M Pierorazio; Jonathan I Epstein; Mehrbod S Javadi; Mohamad E Allaf; Alex S Baras Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 3.138