DOES PATHOLOGICAL T3A UPSTAGING OF CLINICAL T1 STAGE HAS ANY DIFFERENCE ON LONG-TERM SURVIVAL WHEN COMPARED TO PATHOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL T1 STAGE RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

N. Khan, M. A. I. Khalil, Azfar Ali, A. Naeem, A. Rehman, K. Mir
{"title":"DOES PATHOLOGICAL T3A UPSTAGING OF CLINICAL T1 STAGE HAS ANY DIFFERENCE ON LONG-TERM SURVIVAL WHEN COMPARED TO PATHOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL T1 STAGE RENAL CELL CARCINOMA","authors":"N. Khan, M. A. I. Khalil, Azfar Ali, A. Naeem, A. Rehman, K. Mir","doi":"10.37029/jcas.v4i2.164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A high number of clinical T1 (cT1) stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is upstaged to pathological T3a (pT3a) stage on histopathological findings. Several study results show that there is no survival difference among those cT1 stage who are upstaged on histopathological findings to those who remain pT1 stage RCC.Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess any survival difference for cT1 stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) which is upstaged to pT3a stage as compared to those which remain pT1 stage RCC on histopathological findings.Materials and Methods: It was a retrospective cohort study looking at patient aged ≥18 years with cT1 RCC who underwent nephrectomy between January 2006 and December 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on histopathological findings (pT1 vs. pT3a). Survival was analysed for the  two groups using Kaplan–Meier method, and the difference in survival was calculated using log-rank model.Results: The study included 187 patients. The mean age at presentation was 52.56 years, with 58.3% of the patients being male while 41.7% were female. The most common presentation was incidental diagnosis (50.3%). Overall5-year survival for cT1a and pT1a RCC was 68% while that for cT1a and pT3a RCC was 100%. There was no significant survival difference among the two groups (P = 0.316). The overall 5-year survival for cT1b and pT1b RCC was 81% while that for cT1b and pT3a was 65%. There was no significant survival difference among the two groups (P = 0.136).Conclusion: We found no survival difference in cT1 RCC who were upstaged to pT3a on histopathology as compared to cT1 RCC-staged pT1 on histopathology.Key words: Clinical T1 stage, pathological T3a stage, radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma, survival","PeriodicalId":73631,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer & allied specialties","volume":"58 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer & allied specialties","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37029/jcas.v4i2.164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A high number of clinical T1 (cT1) stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is upstaged to pathological T3a (pT3a) stage on histopathological findings. Several study results show that there is no survival difference among those cT1 stage who are upstaged on histopathological findings to those who remain pT1 stage RCC.Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess any survival difference for cT1 stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) which is upstaged to pT3a stage as compared to those which remain pT1 stage RCC on histopathological findings.Materials and Methods: It was a retrospective cohort study looking at patient aged ≥18 years with cT1 RCC who underwent nephrectomy between January 2006 and December 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on histopathological findings (pT1 vs. pT3a). Survival was analysed for the  two groups using Kaplan–Meier method, and the difference in survival was calculated using log-rank model.Results: The study included 187 patients. The mean age at presentation was 52.56 years, with 58.3% of the patients being male while 41.7% were female. The most common presentation was incidental diagnosis (50.3%). Overall5-year survival for cT1a and pT1a RCC was 68% while that for cT1a and pT3a RCC was 100%. There was no significant survival difference among the two groups (P = 0.316). The overall 5-year survival for cT1b and pT1b RCC was 81% while that for cT1b and pT3a was 65%. There was no significant survival difference among the two groups (P = 0.136).Conclusion: We found no survival difference in cT1 RCC who were upstaged to pT3a on histopathology as compared to cT1 RCC-staged pT1 on histopathology.Key words: Clinical T1 stage, pathological T3a stage, radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma, survival
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与病理和临床t1期肾细胞癌相比,病理t3a期临床t1期对长期生存有任何差异吗
背景:大量临床T1 (cT1)期肾细胞癌(RCC)在组织病理学上被病理T3a (pT3a)期所取代。几项研究结果表明,在组织病理学结果上被抢风头的cT1期患者与仍处于pT1期的RCC患者之间没有生存差异。目的:本研究的目的是评估被pT3a期取代的cT1期肾细胞癌(RCC)与在组织病理学结果上仍为pT1期的RCC的生存差异。材料和方法:这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象为2006年1月至2016年12月期间接受肾切除术的年龄≥18岁的cT1型RCC患者。根据组织病理学结果将患者分为两组(pT1 vs. pT3a)。采用Kaplan-Meier法分析两组患者的生存,采用log-rank模型计算生存差异。结果:纳入187例患者。平均发病年龄为52.56岁,男性占58.3%,女性占41.7%。最常见的表现是偶然诊断(50.3%)。cT1a和pT1a RCC的总体5年生存率为68%,而cT1a和pT3a RCC的总体5年生存率为100%。两组患者生存率差异无统计学意义(P = 0.316)。cT1b和pT1b RCC的总体5年生存率为81%,而cT1b和pT3a的总体5年生存率为65%。两组患者生存率差异无统计学意义(P = 0.136)。结论:我们发现,与cT1 RCC分期pT1相比,pT3a阶段的cT1 RCC在组织病理学上没有生存差异。关键词:临床T1期,病理T3a期,根治性肾切除术,肾细胞癌,生存
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Marginal Contribution of Pathogenic RAD51D Germline Variants to Pakistani Early-Onset and Familial Breast/Ovarian Cancer Patients. Mitigating Cardiotoxicity Associated with Anticancer Drugs: An Updated Systematic Review. Survival Outcomes in Malignancy-related Hypercalcemia: A Tertiary Care Single-center Experience. Cancer Statistics from the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Trust's Hospital-based Cancer Registry, Pakistan, 1994-2022: An Observational Study. Clinical Outcome of Patients Receiving Rituximab in Combination with Bendamustine in Indolent B-cell Lymphomas: A Single-center Institutional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1