Urology
Volume 76, Issue 3 , Pages 580-586, September 2010

Unclassified Renal Cell Carcinoma: Impact on Survival Following Nephrectomy

  • Paul L. Crispen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Mitra R. Tabidian

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Cristine Allmer

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Christine M. Lohse

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Rodney H. Breau

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Michael L. Blute

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • John C. Cheville

      Affiliations

    • Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Bradley C. Leibovich

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Bradley C. Leibovich, M.D., Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905

Received 14 October 2009; accepted 22 December 2009. published online 10 March 2010.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of the category of unclassified renal cell carcinoma (URCC) on survival following nephrectomy.

Methods

Patients with clear cell RCC (ccRCC, n = 3048) and URCC (n = 38) were identified. Patients with URCC were matched 4:1 with ccRCC patients based on year of surgery, symptoms at presentation, tumor size, stage, regional lymph node involvement, metastases, grade, coagulative tumor necrosis, and sarcomatoid differentiation. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared between ccRCC and URCC patients using log-rank tests.

Results

Patients with URCC were more likely to have regional lymph node involvement (P <.001), higher grade (P <.001), tumor necrosis (P <.001), and sarcomatoid differentiation (P <.001) as compared to patients with ccRCC. Overall survival was not significantly different between URCC and ccRCC patients in either the unmatched (P = .337) or matched (P = .345) cohorts. Cancer-specific survival was significantly worse for URCC patients compared with unmatched ccRCC patients (P = .020). However, this difference was not statistically significant when the URCC patients were compared with the matched cohort (P = .688). Distant metastases-free survival was somewhat worse for M0 URCC patients compared with unmatched M0 ccRCC patients (P = .063), but not in the matched cohort (P = .788).

Conclusions

Although URCC is more likely to present with advanced clinicopathologic features compared with ccRCC, no statistically significant differences in outcome were noted after adjusting for these features in a matched analysis.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0090-4295(10)00003-8

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.037

Urology
Volume 76, Issue 3 , Pages 580-586, September 2010