Image_2_Comparison of T2N0M0 and T3aN0M0 in Predicting the Prognosis of Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.TIF
Background: To investigate the prognostic role of tumor size in patients with pathological T2N0M0 and T3aN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated by radical surgery.
Methods: A total of 3,662 cases were retrospectively analyzed from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) from 2010 to 2012. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) data were obtained. The log-rank test was used to compare survival distributions and Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively.
Results: In the low-risk T3aN0M0 (perinephric fatty infiltration or sinus fatty infiltration only) group, patients with tumor size ≤ 7 cm were associated with a better OS (P = 0.009) and CSS (P < 0.001) than those with tumor size >7 cm. However, there was no difference in OS (P = 0.129) and CSS (P = 0.539) between T2bN0M0 patients and low-risk T3aN0M0 patients with tumor size ≤ 7 cm. A new T classification grouping patients with both T2bN0M0 and T3aN0M0 with tumor diameter ≤ 7 cm into the same staging category (pT2aN0M0, pT2bN0M0+low-risk pT3aN0M0 [tumor diameter ≤ 7cm], low-risk pT3aN0M0 [tumor diameter >7 cm], high-risk pT3aN0M0) was proposed and it was found as an independent predictive variable for OS and CSS.
Conclusions: Findings from the present study suggest that the reclassification of pT2N0M0 and pT3aN0M0 RCC can lead to better prediction of OS and CSS.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.3322/caac.21590
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00046-X
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nrdp.2017.9
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.001
- https://doi.org//10.1093/annonc/mdz056
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.eururo.2010.07.006
- https://doi.org//10.1245/s10434-010-0985-4
- https://doi.org//10.1097/01.ju.0000146719.43269.e8
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.106
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.064
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.034
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clgc.2014.06.011
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0173953
- https://doi.org//10.1093/jjco/hyy200
- https://doi.org//10.1111/bju.14523
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s40880-019-0405-5
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.019
- https://doi.org//10.1097/JU.0000000000000497
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10985-009-9121-9
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08236.x
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.010
- https://doi.org//10.1200/jco.2015.33.7_suppl.416
- https://doi.org//10.3322/caac.21388
- https://doi.org//10.1097/01.ju.0000173631.01329.1f
CC BY 4.0