4.6 Article

The correlation between size of renal cell carcinoma and its histopathological characteristics: a single center study of 1867 renal cell carcinoma cases

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 110, 期 11B, 页码 E481-E485

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11173.x

关键词

renal neoplasm; tumour staging; pathology; renal cell; carcinoma; kidney

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To investigate the correlation between tumour size and histopathological characteristics of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 1867 patients who underwent surgical operation between January 2002 and March 2010 due to RCC were included. According to 1997 WHO recommendation about Fuhrman nuclear grading of RCC which criteria we used, tumours were stratified by the largest pathologic diameter into 5 groups, the discrepancy of tumour grade between different groups and whether tumour size could predict histological subtype were analyzed. RESULTS The largest diameter (mean +/- SD) of G1, G2, and G3 tumours were 3.27 +/- 1.46 cm, 4.87 +/- 2.23 cm, and 7.39 +/- 3.11 cm, respectively. The percentage of extracapsular extension tumours in 2 cm or less, 2.1 and 4.0 cm, 4.1 to 7 cm, 7.1 to 10 cm, and more than 10 cm group were 0.5%, 4.3%, 19.8%, 57.9%, and 91.9%, respectively. The distribution of G1 tumours shows a decreasing trend with the diameter becoming larger, while the G3 tumours shows an opposite trend (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis predicted that the odds of papillary, chromophobe, and other types vs clear cell decreased with increase in tumour size. If the tumour was complicated with hemorrhage or necrosis, the chance of being chromophobe was higher, while the probability of being papillary and chromophobe decreased when a tumour with cystic degeneration. CONCLUSION There was a significant correlation between tumour size and tumour grade and stage; Larger tumours were prone to have higher grade and stage, and the probability of being clear cell carcinoma grew higher as the tumour size increased.

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

4.6
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