Journal List > Korean J Urol > v.48(12) > 1004832

TOOLS
Lee, Oh, Han, and Yang: Prognostic Significance of the Pre-operative Symptoms in Patients after Radical Nephrectomy for Treating Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma
Original Article
Korean Journal of Urology

Korean Journal of Urology 2007; 48(12): 1209-1212.

Published online: 31 December 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2007.48.12.1209

Prognostic Significance of the Pre-operative Symptoms in Patients after Radical Nephrectomy for Treating Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma

Seung Hwan Lee, Chul Young Oh, Woong Kyu Han, Seung Choul Yang

Department of Urology and Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding author (syang@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr)

Received 18 May 2007       Accepted 15 October 2007

Copyright © 2007 The Korean Urological Association

Abstract

Purpose

We investigated the relationship of the pre-operative symptoms to the other clinicopathologic factors that are known to be significant prognostic indicators for patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

Of the 398 patients who underwent an operation for renal cell carcinoma between March 1998 and May 2004, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of the 293 who were diagnosed and operated on for localized renal cell carcinoma. The patients were divided into three groups according to their pre-operative clinical symptoms. We then evaluated the patients' characteristics, the pathological factors such as the cell type, tumor size, nuclear grade, the pathological T stage, tumor necrosis, the presence of a sarcomatoid component and multifocality by using ANOVA analysis. The overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test.

Results

Of the 293 cases, 118 (40.3%) were in the symptomatic group and 175 (59.7%) were in the asymptomatic groups. There was significant difference in the age, tumor size, the pathological T stage and tumor necrosis between the groups. There was a significant difference in the survival rates between the groups (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Preoperative symptoms are important prognostic factors for patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, determining the more specified symptoms is required for separating the groups with different survival after radical nephrectomy.

Keywords: Symptoms, Prognosis, Renal cell carcinoma

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1
Kaplan-Meier cancer survival curves according to the preoperative symptoms. p<0.001.
kju-48-1209-g001
Fig. 2
Cox proportional harzard regression curves according to the preoperative symptoms.
kju-48-1209-g002
Table 1
Characteristics of the patients with preoperative symptoms and localized renal cell carcinomas
kju-48-1209-i001

Value represents mean±standard deviation. *: ANOVA, †: chi-square test

References

1. Boring CC, Squires TS, Tong T, Montgomery S. Cancer statistics, 1994. CA Cancer J Clin. 1994. 44:7–26.
2. Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Frank I, Kwon ED, et al. Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer. 2003. 97:1663–1671.
3. Lee HW, Cho KS, Jeong H, Yoon SJ, Jo MK, Lee ES, et al. Clinical analysis of incidentally found renal cell carcinoma: experiences of recent 8 years. Korean J Urol. 1998. 39:982–987.
4. Nativ O, Sabo E, Raviv G, Madjar S, Halachmi S, Moskovitz B. The impact of tumor size on clinical outcome in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma treated by radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 1997. 158:729–732.
5. Steiner T, Knels R, Schubert J. Prognostic significance of tumour size in patients after tumour nephrectomy for localised renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2004. 46:327–330.
6. Lang H, Lindner V, Martin M, Letourneux H, Roy C, Saussine C, et al. Prognostic value of multifocality on progression and survival in localized renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2004. 45:749–753.
7. Chang IH, Kim TB, Gil MC, Kim YJ, Hong SK, Byun SS, et al. The clinicopathologic correlations of histologic tumor necrosis for the patients with renal cell carcinoma. Korean J Urol. 2006. 47:449–455.
8. Amin MB, Amin MB, Tamboli P, Javidan J, Stricker H, de-Peralta Venturina M, et al. Prognostic impact of histologic subtyping of adult renal epithelial neoplasms: an experience of 405 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002. 26:281–291.
9. Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1982. 6:655–663.
10. Strohmeyer T, Ackermann R. Classic and modern prognostic indicators in renal cell carcinoma. Review of the literature. Urol Int. 1991. 47:203–212.
11. Green LK, Ayala AG, Ro JY, Swanson DA, Grignon DJ, Giacco GG, et al. Role of nuclear grading in stage I renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1989. 34:310–315.
12. Mian BM, Bhadkamkar N, Slaton JW, Pisters PW, Daliani D, Swanson DA, et al. Prognostic factors and survival of patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2002. 167:65–70.
TOOLS
Similar articles