4.6 Article

Sex differences in renal cell cancer presentation and survival: An analysis of the National Cancer Database, 1993-2004

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 179, Issue 5, Pages 1709-1713

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.024

Keywords

kidney neoplasms; sex; epidemiology; mortality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We analyzed patterns of disease presentation and outcome of renal cell carcinomas by gender using data from the National Cancer Database during a 10-year period. We hypothesized that women presented with lower stage disease and had increased survival than men due to increased imaging. Materials and Methods: The National Cancer Database is a nationwide oncology data set that currently captures approximately 75% of all newly diagnosed cancer cases from more than 1,400 facility based cancer registries in the United States annually since 1985. The National Cancer Database was queried for adults with renal cell carcinoma diagnosed between 1993 and 2004. Cases were examined according to gender in relation to mean age, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, histology, grade, tumor size, mortality and race. Results: We identified a total of 236,930 patients with renal cell carcinoma diagnosed between 1993 and 2004 from the National Cancer Database. A total of 89,243 (37.7%) were female and 147,687 (62.3%) were male. Mean age was greater in females (64.3) than in males (62.9) (p <0.001). Women had a higher percentage of stage I tumors (54.1% vs 48.5%, p <0.001). Progressive stage migration was documented in men and women. A trend toward increased survival was noted in women relative to men that did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Results from this study show a ratio of 1.65 of renal cell carcinoma for males compared to females. Women are more likely than men to have stage I tumors. Both men and women have demonstrated stage migration, although women more so than men.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available