4.4 Article

Histotype predicts the rate of lymph node invasion at nephrectomy in patients with nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.01.013

关键词

Clear-cell; Papillary; Histology; Kidney cancer; SEER database; Survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lymph node invasion (LNI) at nephrectomy is one of the most important predictors of mortality in patients with nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We analyzed the effect of histology on lymph node metastases at nephrectomy and its effect on survival in a contemporary cohort of patients with nonmetastatic RCC. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2015), we identified 100,060 patients with clear-cell, papillary, chromophobe, sarcomatoid, and collecting duct RCC, who underwent nephrectomy with or without lymph node dissection for nonmetastatic RCC. Logistic regression models, cumulative incidence plots, and competing-risks regression models were performed. Results: Overall, 10,590 patients underwent lymph node dissection for nonmetastatic RCC. Of these, LNI was recorded in 52 (7.0%), 615 (8.7%), 282 (13.9%), 316 (25.1%), 129 (38.3%), 45 (71.4%) patients with chromophobe, clear-cell, nonotherwise specified RCC, papillary, sarcomatoid, and collecting duct RCC histological subtypes, respectively. In logistic regression models, relative to clear-cell, papillary Odds ratio (OR 3.9), sarcomatoid (OR 6.3), collecting duct (OR 14.6) but not chromophobe RCC (OR 0.9; P = 0.5) independently predicted LNI at surgery. Moreover, in competing-risks regression models, LNI increased the risk of CSM 1.8-fold for sarcomatoid, 3.6-fold for clear-cell, 4.1-fold for papillary, and 6.7-fold for chromophobe histological subtype. Conclusions: Histology is an independent predictor of increased risk of LNI at nephrectomy. Moreover, the effect of pathological nodal stage on survival differs according to different histology. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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