4.4 Article

Nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma: Clinicopathologic features predictive of patient outcome

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 641-646

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00489-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To-determine the clinicopathologic features associated with outcome in patients with sporadic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with nephron-sparing surgery. Methods. We studied 344 patients treated with nephron-sparing surgery between 1970 and 2000. The pathologic features of the tumors were reviewed by two urologic pathologists who recorded the histologic subtype, 2003 TNM stage, tumor size, and grade. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank tests were used to compare the outcome by histologic subtype. Univariate Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess the associations between the clinicopathologic features and death from RCC, distant metastases, and local recurrence. Results. The CSS rate at 5 and 10 years for patients with clear cell RCC was 94.4% and 91.5%, respectively. In contrast, the CSS rate at 5 and 10 years for patients with papillary or chromophobe RCC was 99.0%, because only I patient died of papillary RCC and no patient died of chromophobe RCC (P = 0.029). Among the patients with localized clear cell RCC, tumor stage and grade were significantly associated with death from RCC and metastases. Grade was significantly associated with local recurrence for clear cell RCC, but not for papillary RCC. Conclusions. In our series of patients with RCC treated with nephron-sparing surgery, patients with clear cell RCC had a significantly worse CSS than did patients with papillary and chromophobe RCC. Tumor stage and grade were associated with outcome among patients with localized clear cell RCC. These findings are similar to the results for patients with localized clear cell RCC treated with radical nephrectomy. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc.

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