4.4 Article

Survival analysis of 130 patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma:: Prognostic utility of type 1 and type 2 subclassification

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 69, 期 2, 页码 230-235

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.052

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the prognostic significance of subtyping papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) into type I and type 2 tumors. METHODS From 1995 to 2004, 1358 patients underwent surgery for renal cell carcinoma, of whom 130 had PRCC alone on the specimen. The tumor characteristics, including their subtype, were analyzed; small basophilic cells and large eosinophilic cells were defined type 1 and type 2 tumors, respectively. Survival analyses were performed retrospectively. RESULTS Of the 130 patients (110 men and 20 women, mean age 60.6 +/- 15.3 years) with PRCC, 102 underwent radical nephrectomy (78.4%) and 28 underwent partial nephrectomy (21.6%). The median tumor size was 4.5 cm (range 0.5 to 21). The comparison of the 68 (52.3%) type I PRCCs and 62 (47.7%) type 2 PRCCs revealed that type 2 tumors were associated with a greater stage and grade and microvascular invasion significantly (P < 0.001) more often. The median follow-up was 48 months (range 2 to I 11). Of the 130 patients, 22 died of cancer-specific causes, 5 (7%) with type 1 and 17 (27%) with type 2 tumors (P = 0.002). The overall and disease-free survival rate was 89% and 92% in type I tumors and 55% and 44% in type 2 tumors, respectively. Univariate analysis identified tumor type, stage (P < 0.001), grade (P < 0.001), microvascular invasion (P < 0.001), an absence of foam cells (P < 0.001), the presence of sarcomatoid cells (P = 0.001), and tumor necrosis (P = 0.007) as prognostic factors. Multivariate analysis retained tumor type (P = 0.034) and TNM stage (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The results of our study have shown that histologic subtyping of PRCC allows for the identification of an independent prognostic factor.

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