Comparison of the Prognosis of Subgroup of Renal Cell Carcinoma of Different Pathological Types
Lia Thongher
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20200430-00344
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To study and compare the prognosis of different pathological subtypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Methods:Clinicopathological and prognostic data of 1 346 cases of postoperative renal cell carcinoma during July 2002 to June 2014 in West China Hospital were collected retrospectively.There were 839 males and 507 females, aged (55.1±13.4)years, including 1 120 cases of clear cell RCC, 62 cases of papillary RCC, 79 cases of chromophobe RCC and 85 cases of the other pathological types respectively. ECOG 0 and ≥1 were 911 and 435 cases, with; T 1, T 2, T 3 and T 4 of 1 019, 177, 102 and 48 cases respectively; WHO nuclear grade for well, intermediate, poor differentiation and unknown were 587, 530, 85 and 144 cases separately.Tumor size <5cm, 5-10cm, ≥10cm and unknown were 685, 541, 104 and 16 cases.Combined with necrosis or sacromatoid differentiation were 200/1 146 and 27/1 319 cases separately. Meanwhile, data of 80 439 cases from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) were also collected.There were 51 371 males and 29 068 females, aged (60.9±12.4) years; , with 66 261, 8 680, 5 022 and 476 cases of White, Black, Asian, American native, or unknown race separately. There were 62 600 of clear cell RCC, 12 170 of papillary RCC, 4 354 of chromophobe RCC and 1 315 of other pathological types, with T 1, T 2, T 3 and T 4 of 55 332, 8 687, 15 516 and 904 cases respectively; WHO nuclear grade for well, intermediate and poor differentiation were 52 323, 22 700 and 5 416 cases separately.Tumor size <5cm, 5-10cm, ≥10cm were 46 741, 25 760 and 7 938 cases respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were performed on these two group of cases, with different factors between subgroups (gender, age, pathological types, tumor stage, size and nuclear grade) evaluated by log-rank test. To evaluate accuracy of outcome prediction models of SSIGN, Leibovich and UISS score, concordance index of these models were evaluated. Results:In 1 346 cases of our cohort, those with chromophobe RCC were well prognostic, survival were relatively better in clear cell RCC than that of papillary RCC, and worst prognosis were demonstrated in those with other types of RCC (5 year overall survival rate: 97.5%, 87.9%, 79.7% and 68.4% separately). Poor prognosis were seen in those older than 50 years, with poor T stage or nuclear grade, large tumor size and tumors with necrosis or sacromatoid differentiation ( P<0.05). In 80 439 seer cases, the best prognosis was also seen in chromophobe RCC and the worst in other type of RCC separately (5 year overall survival rate: 96.3% and 85.3%). In addition, longer survival was seen in papillary RCC than clear cell RCC (5 year overall survival rate: 92.5% and 88.9%). However, similar results with our cohort were seen in Asian and American native subgroup of SEER cases (95.1%, 88.6%, 86.7%, 80.2% for chromophobe, clear cell, papillary and other types of RCC respectively). Poor prognosis were seen in those older than 50 years, males, Asian/ American Indian, poor T stage or nuclear grade and large tumor size ( P<0.05). Concordance index for SSIGN, Leibovich and UISS models in our cohort were 0.763-0.781, 0.725-0.752 and 0.641-0.660, respectively. The chromophobe RCC subgroup was relative better based on predictive value of prognosis models(c-index of UISS of 0.670-0.781, SSIGN and Leibovich of 0.733-0.903). Conclusions:In Asian RCC population, prognosis of chromophobe RCC is best, clear cell RCC is slightly better than papillary RCC, and the prognosis of other types of RCC is the worst. Concordance index of SSIGN and Leibovich in our cohort were higher than that of UISS, and the use value for predictive model was better in the chromophobe RCC subgroup.