4.3 Article

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate kinetics as a marker of treatment response and predictor of prognosis in Chinese metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 422-430

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02761.x

关键词

erythrocyte sedimentation rate; metastatic renal cell carcinoma; prognostic factor; sorafenib

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Previous prognostic factor models for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have not included erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). We designed the present study to evaluate the prognostic value of ESR for mRCC patients treated with sorafenib. Methods: Sorafenib was given to 83 patients with clear cell mRCC. Serum ESR was tested before treatment and every 4 weeks after first administration of sorafenib. Oncological evaluation was carried out every 8 weeks. Analyzed factors included age, sex, performance status, method of nephrectomy, number of metastatic organs, anemia, lactate dehydrogenase, corrected calcium, albumin, baseline ESR level and ESR kinetics status. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses on progression-free survival (PFS) were carried out. Results: Baseline ESR levels ranged from 3 to 154 mm/h, and 43 (41.0%) patients had an ESR level higher than 40 mm/h. Median PFS was 10.0 months (95% CI 7.6-12.4 months). Dividing the cohort into three groups according to ESR kinetics status, median PFS was 27 months in the decreased ESR group, 12 months in the stable ESR group and 6 months in the increased ESR group. Performance status, time from diagnoses to sorafenib treatment, number of metastatic organs and ESR kinetics were independent predictors for PFS in multivariable Cox regression model analysis, with an area under the curve of 0.865 in a binary logistic regression model of 12-month PFS probability. Conclusions: ESR kinetics can be useful to monitor the treatment response and to predict PFS for mRCC patients treated with sorafenib as second-line therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据