IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0184173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcome of papillary versus clear cell renal cell carcinoma varies significantly in non-metastatic disease

Author

Listed:
  • Nina Wagener
  • Dominic Edelmann
  • Axel Benner
  • Richard Zigeuner
  • Hendrik Borgmann
  • Ingmar Wolff
  • Laura M Krabbe
  • Mireia Musquera
  • Paolo Dell’Oglio
  • Umberto Capitanio
  • Tobias Klatte
  • Luca Cindolo
  • Matthias May
  • Sabine D Brookman-May
  • on behalf of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Cancer Group

Abstract

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) comprises a heterogenous group of tumors. Traditionally, papillary RCC (pRCC) is associated with a favorable outcome compared to clear cell RCC (ccRCC), while other series report equivalent or worse prognosis. In this paper we comparatively evaluate outcome of pRCC versus ccRCC in two large multi-institutional databases (cohort study), including distribution of pRCC subtypes 1 and 2. Retrospective data of 1,943 surgically treated pRCC patients from 17 European/ North American centers between 1984–2015 were compared to 5,600 ccRCC patients from a database comprising 11 European/ North American centers (1984–2011). Median follow-up was 64.6 months. Differences between pRCC, subtypes, and ccRCC were compared with t-tests, Chi^2-tests, and exact Fisher tests. Cancer-specific mortality was analyzed with cumulative incidence curves and Cox cause-specific hazard models. The robustness of our results was examined with sensitivity analyses. We present that cancer-specific mortality rates and variables as stage, lymph node, and distant metastasis differ significantly between groups. Furthermore, we demonstrate that patients with non-metastatic pRCC had a significantly better cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.76, p = 0.007), when compared to ccRCC. Additionally, pRCC type 2 versus ccRCC exhibited no difference in cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.9, p = 0.722), whereas pRCC type 1 versus ccRCC displayed a risk of death reduced by 69% (p = 0.044). Taken together, outcome of pRCC versus ccRCC varies significantly in non-metastatic disease. Furthermore, pRCC type 2 exhibited no difference in cancer-specific mortality, whereas pRCC type 1 displayed a significantly reduced risk of death. Consequently, there is urgent need to respect histopathological entities and their subtypes, when assigning follow-up or targeted therapy to RCC patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Nina Wagener & Dominic Edelmann & Axel Benner & Richard Zigeuner & Hendrik Borgmann & Ingmar Wolff & Laura M Krabbe & Mireia Musquera & Paolo Dell’Oglio & Umberto Capitanio & Tobias Klatte & Luca Cind, 2017. "Outcome of papillary versus clear cell renal cell carcinoma varies significantly in non-metastatic disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0184173
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184173
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184173&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0184173?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0184173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.