1
|
Erdem S, Bertolo R, Campi R, Capitanio U, Amparore D, Anceschi U, Mir MC, Roussel E, Pavan N, Carbonara U, Kara O, Klatte T, Marchioni M, Pecoraro A, Muselaers S, Marandino L, Diana P, Borregales L, Palumbo C, Warren H, Wu Z, Calio A, Ciccarese C, Degirmenci E, Aydin R, Rebez G, Schips L, Simone G, Minervini A, Serni S, Ozcan F. The prognostic role of histomorphological subtyping in nonmetastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma after curative surgery: is subtype really irrelevant? A propensity score matching analysis of a multi-institutional real life data. Urol Oncol 2024; 42:163.e1-163.e13. [PMID: 38443238 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.01.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2023] [Revised: 12/10/2023] [Accepted: 01/25/2024] [Indexed: 03/07/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM The role of histomorphological subtyping is an issue of debate in papillary renal cell carcinoma (papRCC). This multi-institutional study investigated the prognostic role of histomorphological subtyping in patients undergoing curative surgery for nonmetastatic papRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 1,086 patients undergoing curative surgery were included from a retrospectively collected multi-institutional nonmetastatic papRCC database. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on histomorphological subtyping (type 1, n = 669 and type 2, n = 417). Furthermore, a propensity score-matching (PSM) cohort in 1:1 ratio (n = 317 for each subtype) was created to reduce the effect of potential confounding variables. The primary outcome of the study, the predictive role of histomorphological subtyping on the prognosis (recurrence free survival [RFS], cancer specific survival [CSS] and overall survival [OS]) in nonmetastatic papRCC after curative surgery, was investigated in both overall and PSM cohorts. RESULTS In overall cohort, type 2 group were older (66 vs. 63 years, P = 0.015) and more frequently underwent radical nephrectomy (37.4% vs. 25.6%, P < 0.001) and lymphadenectomy (22.3% vs. 15.1%, P = 0.003). Tumor size (4.5 vs. 3.8 cm, P < 0.001) was greater, and nuclear grade (P < 0.001), pT stage (P < 0.001), pN stage (P < 0.001), VENUSS score (P < 0.001) and VENUSS high risk (P < 0.001) were significantly higher in type 2 group. 5-year RFS (89.6% vs. 74.2%, P < 0.001), CSS (93.9% vs. 84.2%, P < 0.001) and OS (88.5% vs. 78.5%, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in type 2 group. On multivariable analyses, type 2 was a significant predictor for RFS (HR:1.86 [95%CI:1.33-2.61], P < 0.001) and CSS (HR:1.91 [95%CI:1.20-3.04], P = 0.006), but not for OS (HR:1.27 [95%CI:0.92-1.76], P = 0.150). In PSM cohort balanced with age, gender, symptoms at diagnosis, pT and pN stages, tumor grade, surgical margin status, sarcomatoid features, rhabdoid features, and presence of necrosis, type 2 increased recurrence risk (HR:1.75 [95%CI: 1.16-2.65]; P = 0.008), but not cancer specific mortality (HR: 1.57 [95%CI: 0.91-2.68]; P = 0.102) and overall mortality (HR: 1.01 [95%CI: 0.68-1.48]; P = 0.981) CONCLUSIONS: This multiinstitutional study suggested that type 2 was associated with adverse histopathologic outcomes, and predictor of RFS and CSS after surgical treatment of nonmetastatic papRCC, in overall cohort. In propensity score-matching cohort, type 2 remained the predictor of RFS. Eventhough 5th WHO classification for renal tumors eliminated histomorphological subtyping, these findings suggest that subtyping is relevant from the point of prognostic view.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Selcuk Erdem
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, Istanbul University Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands.
| | - Riccardo Bertolo
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Urology, San Carlo Di Nancy Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Riccardo Campi
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Umberto Capitanio
- Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniele Amparore
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Umberto Anceschi
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Eduard Roussel
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Nicola Pavan
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Urology Clinic, Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Science, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
| | - Umberto Carbonara
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Unit of Andrology and Kidney Transplantation, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation-Urology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - Onder Kara
- Department of Urology, Kocaeli University School of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Tobias Klatte
- Department of Urology, Helios Klinikum Bad Saarow, Bad Saarow, Germany
| | - Michele Marchioni
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Urology, SS. Annunziata Hospital, G. D'Annunzio University, Chieti, Italy
| | - Angela Pecoraro
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Division of Urology, Pederzoli Hospital, Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy
| | - Stijn Muselaers
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Laura Marandino
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Pietro Diana
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Clinic, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Leonardo Borregales
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY
| | - Carlotta Palumbo
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Division of Urology, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | - Hannah Warren
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Zhenjie Wu
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Anna Calio
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Diagnostic and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Chiara Ciccarese
- European Association of Urology (EAU), Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, Netherlands; Medical Oncology Unit, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Enes Degirmenci
- Department of Urology, Istanbul University Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Resat Aydin
- Medical Oncology Unit, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Giacomo Rebez
- Urology Clinic, Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Science, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
| | - Luigi Schips
- Department of Urology, SS. Annunziata Hospital, G. D'Annunzio University, Chieti, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Simone
- School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Andrea Minervini
- Unit of Urological Oncologic Minimally-Invasive Robotic Surgery and Andrology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Sergio Serni
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Faruk Ozcan
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, Istanbul University Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Marra G, van Leenders GJLH, Zattoni F, Kesch C, Rajwa P, Cornford P, van der Kwast T, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, De Meerleer G, De Santis M, Eberli D, Farolfi A, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Grummet JP, Henry AM, Lardas M, Lieuw M, Linares Espinós E, Mason MD, O'Hanlon S, van Oort IM, Oprea-Lager DE, Ploussard G, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Stranne J, Tilki D, Wiegel T, Willemse PPM, Mottet N, Gandaglia G. Impact of Epithelial Histological Types, Subtypes, and Growth Patterns on Oncological Outcomes for Patients with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Curative Intent: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2023:S0302-2838(23)02654-4. [PMID: 37117107 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Revised: 01/11/2023] [Accepted: 03/14/2023] [Indexed: 04/30/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed. OBJECTIVE To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
| | - Geert J L H van Leenders
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Fabio Zattoni
- Urologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy
| | - Claudia Kesch
- Department of Urology, West German Cancer Center, University of Duisburg, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland; Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Gert De Meerleer
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, West German Cancer Center, University of Duisburg, Essen, Germany; Department of Urology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniel Eberli
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Farolfi
- Nuclear Medicine Division, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Nikolaos Grivas
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jeremy P Grummet
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Caulfield North, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Michael Lardas
- Department of Urology, Metropolitan General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Matt Lieuw
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | | | - Malcolm D Mason
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - Shane O'Hanlon
- Medicine for Older People, Saint Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Inge M van Oort
- Department of Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Guillaume Ploussard
- La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France; Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Toulouse, Onocopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Johan Stranne
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Science, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg Sweden; Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenborg, Sweden
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter-Paul M Willemse
- Department of Urology, Cancer Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Nicolas Mottet
- Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Saint Etienne, Saint Etienne, France
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Guo P, Wang Y, Han Y, Wei D, Zhao J, Li M, Jiang Y, Luo Y. Development and validation of a nomogram to predict postoperative cancer-specific survival of patients with nonmetastatic T3a renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:835.e19-835.e27. [PMID: 34620554 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.06.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2021] [Revised: 06/02/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To establish a nomogram for the prediction of postoperative cancer-specific survival (CSS) in patients with nonmetastatic T3a renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were searched for patients with pT3aN0-1M0 RCC between 2010 and 2018. The patients were randomly stratified into the training and verification group (7:3 ratio). Using Cox regression analysis, the predictors for the CSS in the training group were integrated to establish the nomogram for predicting the 3-year and 5-year CSS. Harrell's concordance index (C-index), time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve, decision curve analysis, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used to evaluate the nomogram performance. RESULTS A total of 5,791 pT3aN0-1M0 RCC cases with eligible data were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Age, tumor size, surgery type, Fuhrman grade, histological type, sarcomatoid, N stage, and invasion patterns were identified as the significant predictors for CSS to establish the nomogram. The C-indices of the nomogram were 0.774 (95% CI: 0.753-0.795) and 0.777 (95% CI: 0.745-0.809) for the training and verification group, respectively. The calibration of the nomogram revealed consistency between the predicted and observed survival. The area under the 3-year and 5-year CSS receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.773 and 0.786 in the training group, respectively. Decision curve analysis showed the optimal application of the model in clinical decision-making. According to the cutoff values of prognostic indices, patients with low-risk showed better CSS than those with high-risk in both training and verification groups (both P< 0.0001). CONCLUSION The current nomogram could effectively predict the CSS of patients with nonmetastatic T3a RCC, and could be used to identify patients who might need a compact interval of follow-up and postoperative adjuvant systemic treatment. The limitations included the retrospective nature, absence of external validation, and several unmeasured variables related to the selection bias of surgery type. The results should be interpreted with caution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pengju Guo
- Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Yongxing Wang
- Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Yili Han
- Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Dechao Wei
- Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Jiahui Zhao
- Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Mingchuan Li
- Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Yongguang Jiang
- Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
| | - Yong Luo
- Department of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Morris MJ, Mota JM, Lacuna K, Hilden P, Gleave M, Carducci MA, Saad F, Cohn ED, Filipenko J, Heller G, Shore N, Armstrong AJ, Scher HI. Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial of Androgen Deprivation Therapy with or Without Docetaxel in High-risk Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Surgery (TAX3503). Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:543-552. [PMID: 34020931 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2021] [Revised: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND No standard of care exists for patients with high-risk biochemical recurrence (BCR) after prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved progression-free survival (PFS) in high-risk BCR patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS TAX3503 was a multicenter phase 3 trial that randomized patients with high-risk BCR to ADT for 18 mo ± docetaxel (75 mg/m2 q3w for ten cycles). Eligibility included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥1.0 ng/ml after prostatectomy alone or after postoperative radiation therapy, PSA doubling time ≤9 mo, and absence of metastases on computed tomography and bone scintigraphy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was PFS following testosterone recovery to noncastrate levels (testosterone >50 ng/dl). Secondary endpoints included time to testosterone recovery, overall survival (OS), quality of life, and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Between September 2007 and May 2011, 413 patients were assigned to ADT ± docetaxel. In 2012, following completion of accrual and treatment, the sponsor withdrew support of the study, and in 2013, a registry was created to secure the primary endpoint. The final analysis included data from the original trial and registry. At a median follow-up of 33.6 mo, 260 patients demonstrated testosterone recovery, which occurred similarly between groups. ADT plus docetaxel trended toward a nonclinically meaningful improvement in PFS (median 26.2 vs 24.7 mo) for the testosterone-recovered population (218 events, hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-1.04) and in OS for the intention-to-treat population (medians not reached, HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23-1.10). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred more frequently in the ADT plus docetaxel group (48.0% vs 10.8%). CONCLUSIONS TAX3503 did not demonstrate a meaningful benefit of adding docetaxel to ADT in patients with high-risk BCR. Testosterone recovery was unaffected by addition of docetaxel to ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY Addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy did not meaningfully improve outcomes for men with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael J Morris
- Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Jose Mauricio Mota
- Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Kristine Lacuna
- Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Patrick Hilden
- Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Martin Gleave
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Michael A Carducci
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Fred Saad
- Division of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Erica D Cohn
- Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Julie Filipenko
- Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium, New York, NY, USA
| | - Glenn Heller
- Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Neal Shore
- Department of Urology, Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
| | - Andrew J Armstrong
- Divisions of Medical Oncology and Urology, Departments of Medicine and Surgery at the Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Howard I Scher
- Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rekman JF, Smith P, Bonds M, Coy D, Helton S. Current Imaging Standards for Nonmetastatic Benign and Malignant Liver Tumors. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2019; 28:539-72. [PMID: 31472905 DOI: 10.1016/j.soc.2019.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
The accurate diagnosis of a liver mass can usually be established with a thorough history, examination, laboratory inquiry, and imaging. The necessity of a liver biopsy to determine the nature of a liver mass is rarely necessary. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance are the standard of care for diagnosing liver lesions and high-quality imaging should be performed before performing a biopsy. This article discusses current consensus guidelines for imaging of liver masses, as well as masses found on surveillance imaging. The ability to accurately characterize lesions requires proper use and understanding of the technology and expert interpretation.
Collapse
|
6
|
Viers BR, Houston Thompson R, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Tollefson MK. Preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts death among patients with localized clear cell renal carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy. Urol Oncol 2014; 32:1277-84. [PMID: 25017696 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.05.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2014] [Revised: 04/30/2014] [Accepted: 05/31/2014] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is an indicator of the systemic inflammatory response. An increased pretreatment NLR has been associated with adverse outcomes in other malignancies, but its role in localized (M0) clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains unclear. As such, we evaluated the ability of preoperative NLR to predict oncologic outcomes in patients with M0 ccRCC undergoing radical nephrectomy (RN). METHODS AND MATERIALS From 1995 to 2008, 952 patients underwent RN for M0 ccRCC. Of these, 827 (87%) had pretreatment NLR collected within 90 days before RN. Metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate models were used to analyze the association of NLR with clinicopathologic outcomes. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 9.3 years, 302, 233, and 436 patients had distant metastasis, death from ccRCC, and all-cause mortality, respectively. Higher NLR was associated with larger tumor size, higher nuclear grade, histologic tumor necrosis, and sarcomatoid differentiation (all, P < 0.001). A NLR ≥ 4.0 was significantly associated with worse 5-year cancer-specific (66% vs. 85%) and overall survival (66% vs. 85%). Finally, after controlling for clinicopathologic features, NLR remained independently associated with risks of death from ccRCC and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for 1-unit increase: 1.02, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that NLR is independently associated with increased risks of cancer-specific and all-cause mortality among patients with M0 ccRCC undergoing RN. Accordingly, NLR, an easily obtained marker of biologically aggressive ccRCC, may be useful in preoperative patient risk stratification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Boyd R Viers
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | - Christine M Lohse
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | |
Collapse
|