3.8 Article

Gender-specific characteristics and survival of renal cell carcinoma

Journal

UROLOGE
Volume 47, Issue 9, Pages 1182-+

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00120-008-1832-0

Keywords

renal cell carcinoma; gender; prognosis; survival; routine medical check-up

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) occurs twice as often in men as in women; however, the influence of gender on stage, grade, subtype and prognosis has not been studied in detail. Methods. This study included 780 patients treated by (partial) nephrectomy at our institution in Marburg between 1990 and 2005. The mean follow-up was 5.44 years. Results. Of the 780 patients, 486 (62%) were men and 294 (38%) were women. Women were significantly older (mean, 65.3 vs. 62.2 years; p<0.001, t-test), presented at lower T stages (p=0.046, X-2) and suffered metastasis less frequently at diagnosis (p=0.026, X-2). In addition, women more frequently had clear cell tumours (85.2% vs. 78.3%) and less frequently papillary tumours (11.0% vs. 18.8%) than men (p=0.026, X-2). In contrast, men had an increased risk of death from RCC (HR 1.23, CI 0.92-1.63); Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a significant difference in tumour-specific survival between men and women (p=0.033, log rank; 5-year survival 74% vs. 83%). However, unlike tumour stage and tumour grade, gender could not be retained as a significant independent prognostic marker in multivariate analysis. Conclusion. In general, RCC in men is characterized by higher tumour stages and more frequent metastasis at diagnosis along with inferior tumour-specific survival. However, as gender failed to qualify as an independent prognostic marker for tumour-specific survival, delayed diagnosis due to insufficient routine medical check-up and/or a more aggressive tumour biology might be be a concurrent cause. Thorough regular medical checkups for men, also with regard to RCC, are thus mandatory.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available