Angela Pecoraro1, Carlotta Palumbo2, Sophie Knipper3, Giuseppe Rosiello4, Stefano Luzzago5, Zhe Tian6, Shahrokh F Shariat7, Fred Saad8, Luke Lavallée9, Alberto Briganti10, Anil Kapoor11, Cristian Fiori12, Francesco Porpiglia12, Pierre I Karakiewicz8. 1. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. Electronic address: pecoraroangela@libero.it. 2. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; Urology Unit, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 3. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; Martini Klinik, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; Division of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute; and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 5. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 6. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada. 7. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 8. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; Division of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Center, Montreal, QC, Canada. 9. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 10. Division of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute; and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 11. Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 12. Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the association between synchronous metastases (SMs), histologic subtype (HS), tumor size (TS), and tumor grade (TG) in surgically treated stage T2 renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2005-2015), 8344 patients with T2 RCC who had undergone radical nephrectomy were identified. The SM rates were tabulated according to the HS, TG, and TS and tested in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: According to the HS, the average SM rates were 0%, 1.4%, 4.6%, 6.4%, 12.7%, 20.0%, and 32.7% for multilocular cystic, chromophobe, papillary, TG 1-2 clear cell, TG 3-4 clear cell, collecting duct, and sarcomatoid dedifferentiation RCC, respectively. In multivariable logistic regression models predicting for SMs, HS represented the strongest predictor, followed by TG, TS, and race. When combined, HS, TG, TS, and race predicted for SMs with 70.2% accuracy compared with 62.5% with HS, 60.2% with TG, 57.8% with TS, and 53.0% with race alone. Lung only was the most common metastatic site (43.6%), followed by bone only (27.6%), liver only (4.4%), and brain only (4.4%). Of all the patients with SMs, 78.9% had a single metastatic site. CONCLUSIONS: The SM rates showed very wide variation according to the HS, TG, and TS. When HS was combined with TG, TS, and race, SMs could be accurately predicted in individual patients better than with TS alone. Thus, renal mass biopsy-derived HS and TG could improve the prediction of SMs compared with using TS alone.
BACKGROUND: We investigated the association between synchronous metastases (SMs), histologic subtype (HS), tumor size (TS), and tumor grade (TG) in surgically treated stage T2 renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2005-2015), 8344 patients with T2 RCC who had undergone radical nephrectomy were identified. The SM rates were tabulated according to the HS, TG, and TS and tested in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: According to the HS, the average SM rates were 0%, 1.4%, 4.6%, 6.4%, 12.7%, 20.0%, and 32.7% for multilocular cystic, chromophobe, papillary, TG 1-2 clear cell, TG 3-4 clear cell, collecting duct, and sarcomatoid dedifferentiation RCC, respectively. In multivariable logistic regression models predicting for SMs, HS represented the strongest predictor, followed by TG, TS, and race. When combined, HS, TG, TS, and race predicted for SMs with 70.2% accuracy compared with 62.5% with HS, 60.2% with TG, 57.8% with TS, and 53.0% with race alone. Lung only was the most common metastatic site (43.6%), followed by bone only (27.6%), liver only (4.4%), and brain only (4.4%). Of all the patients with SMs, 78.9% had a single metastatic site. CONCLUSIONS: The SM rates showed very wide variation according to the HS, TG, and TS. When HS was combined with TG, TS, and race, SMs could be accurately predicted in individual patients better than with TS alone. Thus, renal mass biopsy-derived HS and TG could improve the prediction of SMs compared with using TS alone.
Authors: Jinkui Wang; Chenghao Zhanghuang; Xiaojun Tan; Tao Mi; Jiayan Liu; Liming Jin; Mujie Li; Zhaoxia Zhang; Dawei He Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-01-28