Literature DB >> 28836063

Prognostic significance of Fuhrman grade and age for cancer-specific and overall survival in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma: results of an international multi-institutional study on 2189 patients.

H Borgmann1, M Musquera2,3, A Haferkamp1, A Vilaseca4, T Klatte5, S F Shariat5, A Scavuzzo6, M A Jimenez Rios6, I Wolff7, U Capitanio8, P Dell'Oglio8, L M Krabbe9, E Herrmann9, T Ecke10, D Vergho11, N Huck12, N Wagener12, S Pahernik13, S Zastrow14, M Wirth14, C Surcel15, C Mirvald15, K Prochazkova16, G Hutterer17, R Zigeuner17, L Cindolo18, M Hora16, C G Stief19, M May20, S D Brookman-May21.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Because the prognostic impact of the clinical and pathological features on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma (papRCC) is still controversial, we want to assess the impact of clinicopathological features, including Fuhrman grade and age, on survival in surgically treated papRCC patients in a large multi-institutional series.
METHODS: We established a comprehensive multi-institutional database of surgically treated papRCC patients. Histopathological data collected from 2189 patients with papRCC after radical nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery were pooled from 18 centres in Europe and North America. OS and CSS probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable competing risks analyses were used to assess the impact of Fuhrman grade (FG1-FG4) and age groups (<50 years, 50-75 years, >75 years) on cancer-specific mortality (CSM).
RESULTS: CSS and OS rates for patients were 89 and 81% at 3 years, 86 and 75% at 5 years and 78 and 41% at 10 years after surgery, respectively. CSM differed significantly between FG 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-8.22; p < 0.001) and FG 4 (HR 8.93, 95% CI 4.25-18.79; p < 0.001) in comparison to FG 1. CSM was significantly worse in patients aged >75 (HR 2.85, 95% CI 2.06-3.95; p < 0.001) compared to <50 years.
CONCLUSIONS: FG is a strong prognostic factor for CSS in papRCC patients. In addition, patients older than 75 have worse CSM than patients younger than 50 years. These findings should be considered for clinical decision making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Grading; Kidney cancer; Mortality; Renal cancer; Renal cell carcinoma; Subtype

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28836063     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2078-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  25 in total

1.  The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia.

Authors:  John R Srigley; Brett Delahunt; John N Eble; Lars Egevad; Jonathan I Epstein; David Grignon; Ondrej Hes; Holger Moch; Rodolfo Montironi; Satish K Tickoo; Ming Zhou; Pedram Argani
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Histological subtype is an independent predictor of outcome for patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Bradley C Leibovich; Christine M Lohse; Paul L Crispen; Stephen A Boorjian; R Houston Thompson; Michael L Blute; John C Cheville
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Morphologic typing of papillary renal cell carcinoma: comparison of growth kinetics and patient survival in 66 cases.

Authors:  B Delahunt; J N Eble; M R McCredie; P B Bethwaite; J H Stewart; A M Bilous
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 4.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

Authors:  F E Harrell; K L Lee; D B Mark
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Young age as favorable prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival in localized renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Yoshinobu Komai; Yasuhisa Fujii; Yasumasa Iimura; Manabu Tatokoro; Kazutaka Saito; Yukihiro Otsuka; Fumitaka Koga; Chizuru Arisawa; Satoru Kawakami; Tetsuo Okuno; Toshihiko Tsujii; Yukio Kageyama; Shinji Morimoto; Tsuguhiro Toma; Yotsuo Higashi; Iwao Fukui; Kazunori Kihara
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-01-22       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Horst Zincke; Amy L Weaver; Michael L Blute
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 7.  EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update.

Authors:  Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Age at diagnosis is a determinant factor of renal cell carcinoma-specific survival in patients treated with nephrectomy.

Authors:  Pierre I Karakiewicz; Claudio Jeldres; Nazareno Suardi; George C Hutterer; Paul Perrotte; Umberto Capitanio; Vincenzo Ficarra; Luca Cindolo; Alexandre de La Taille; Jacques Tostain; Peter F Mulders; Laurent Salomon; Richard Zigeuner; Luigi Schips; Denis Chautard; Antoine Valeri; Eric Lechevallier; Jean-Luc Descots; Herve Lang; Arnaud Mejean; Gregory Verhoest; Jean-Jacques Patard
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  S A Fuhrman; L C Lasky; C Limas
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 6.394

10.  The subclassification of papillary renal cell carcinoma does not affect oncological outcomes after nephron sparing surgery.

Authors:  Pierre Bigot; Jean-Christophe Bernhard; Inderbir S Gill; Nam Son Vuong; Grégory Verhoest; Vincent Flamand; Boris Reix; Evren Suer; Ilker Gökce; Jean Baptiste Beauval; François Xavier Nouhaud; Masatoshi Eto; Eduard Baco; Toru Matsugasumi; Yvonne Chowaniec; Jérôme Rigaud; Claire Lenormand; Christian Pfister; Jean François Hetet; Guillaume Ploussard; Morgan Roupret; Priscilla Léon; Adnan El Bakri; Stéphane Larré; Xavier Tillou; Arnaud Doerfler; Aurélien Descazeaud; Nicolas Koutlidis; Alexandre Schneider; Philippe Sebe; Alexandre Ingels; Abdel Rahmène Azzouzi; Michel Soulié; Arnaud Méjean; Karim Bensalah; Jean-Jacques Patard
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 4.226

View more
  12 in total

1.  Answer to comment on manuscript "Prognostic significance of Fuhrman grade and age for cancer-specific and overall survival in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma: results of an international multi-institutional study on 2189 patients".

Authors:  H Borgmann; M Musquera; M May; S D Brookman-May
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Fuhrman grading is inappropriate for papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; John R Srigley; Hemamali Samaratunga
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  The predictive value of the preoperative fibrinogen-albumin ratio on the postoperative prognosis of renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Jun Liu; Ying Gan; Haifeng Song; Kun Zhu; Qian Zhang
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-06

4.  Prognostic effect of renal collecting system invasion on survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma and tumor thrombus.

Authors:  Mikolaj Przydacz; Tomasz Golabek; Krzysztof Okon; Przemyslaw Dudek; Piotr Chlosta
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2020-09-08

5.  The first competing risk survival nomogram in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Xing Su; Niu-Niu Hou; Li-Jun Yang; Peng-Xiao Li; Xiao-Jian Yang; Guang-Dong Hou; Xue-Lin Gao; Shuai-Jun Ma; Fan Guo; Rui Zhang; Wu-He Zhang; Wei-Jun Qin; Fu-Li Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  DNA methylation-based classification and identification of renal cell carcinoma prognosis-subgroups.

Authors:  Wenbiao Chen; Jia Zhuang; Peizhong Peter Wang; Jingjing Jiang; Chenhong Lin; Ping Zeng; Yan Liang; Xujun Zhang; Yong Dai; Hongyan Diao
Journal:  Cancer Cell Int       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 5.722

7.  Development and Validation of a Nomogram Predicting the Prognosis of Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy.

Authors:  Mancheng Xia; Haosen Yang; Yusheng Wang; Keqiang Yin; Xiaodong Bian; Jiawei Chen; Weibing Shuang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Comparison of clinicopathologic parameters and oncologic outcomes between type 1 and type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Xiang Le; Xiang-Bo Wang; Hao Zhao; Ren-Fu Chen; Peng Ge
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 2.264

9.  Predictive value of preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in non-metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma patients after receiving curative surgery.

Authors:  Xiang Tu; Fan Wang; Tiancong Chang; Chichen Zhang; Mengni Zhang; Zhenhua Liu; Shi Qiu; Lu Yang; Qiang Wei
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 3.989

10.  The Clinicopathological Risk Factors in Renal Cell Cancer for the Oncological Outcomes Following Nephron-Sparing Surgery: A PRISMA Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Lijin Zhang; Bin Wu; Zhenlei Zha; Wei Qu; Hu Zhao; Jun Yuan
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-03-06       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.