4.1 Article

The establishment of KORCC (KOrean Renal Cell Carcinoma) database

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages 50-57

Publisher

KOREAN UROLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.4111/icu.2016.57.1.50

Keywords

Database; Kidney neoplasms; Population characteristics

Funding

  1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund [02-2012-027]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to report establishment of the 1st Web-based database (DB) system to collect renal cell carcinoma (RCC) data in Korea. Materials and Methods: The new Web-based DB system was established to collect basic demographic and clinicopahtological characteristics of a large cohort of patients with RCC in Korea. Data from a total of 6,849 patients were collected from 8 tertiary care hospitals that agreed to participate in organizing the Korean Renal Cell Carcinoma (KORCC) study group as of 1 July 2015. Basic demographic and clinicopathological characteristics were collected. The data of patients who underwent surgical treatments were analyzed to characterize Korean RCC. Results: We established the 1st Web-based DB of Korean RCC, a database comprising renal mass management cases from multiple centers in Korea. The data of 5,281 patients who underwent surgical management (mean follow-up, 32 months) were analyzed. The most common symptom was incidentally detected renal mass (76.9%). Clinical T1a was the most common (54.3%) stage and mean tumor size was 4.8 +/- 4.2 cm. Radical nephrectomy accounted for 62.7% of cases and an open approach was used in 50.7% and 52.2% of radical and partial nephrectomies, respectively. The 5-year overall, cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival rates were 88.1%, 92.2%, and 88.0%, respectively. Conclusions: We report the 1st establishment of a Web-based DB system to collect RCC data in Korea. This DB system will provide a solid basis for the characterization of Korean RCC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available