T1b肾细胞癌部分与根治性肾切除术:基于监测、流行病学和最终结果数据库的疗效和预后因素的比较

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Kong Ren, Fei Wu, Haihu Wu, Hao Ning, Jiaju Lyu
{"title":"T1b肾细胞癌部分与根治性肾切除术:基于监测、流行病学和最终结果数据库的疗效和预后因素的比较","authors":"Kong Ren, Fei Wu, Haihu Wu, Hao Ning, Jiaju Lyu","doi":"10.1097/cu9.0000000000000229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives This study compared the long-term efficacy and prognostic factors of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for T1bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Materials and methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 12,471 patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 RCC from the SEER database between 2010 and 2019. Patients were divided into the PN and RN groups, and propensity score matching was conducted to balance the differences between the groups. We compared overall survival (OS), RCC cancer–specific mortality (CSM), and noncancer-specific mortality (NCSM) between the two groups. The risk factors for all-cause and RCC-related mortality were analyzed. Results After propensity score matching, there were 3817 patients in each group. After matching, OS and NCSM were significantly longer in the PN group ( p < 0.001); however, there was no significant between-group difference in the RCC-CSM. The hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the PN group (HR, 0.671; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.579–0.778, p < 0.001), but PN was not associated with lower RCC-related mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that PN reduced the HR of all-cause mortality by 35% (HR, 0.647; 95% CI, 0.536–0.781; p < 0.001) in patients with 4.0- to 5.5-cm tumors compared with RN and by 29% (HR, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.559–0.899; p = 0.004) in those with larger tumors (5.6–7.0 cm). Multifactorial analysis showed that PN was an independent predictor of OS (HR, 0.671; 95% CI, 0.579–0.778; p < 0.001). In addition, multivariate analysis validated that age at diagnosis, sex, pathological grade, and tumor size were associated with outcomes. Conclusions In patients with T1b RCC, PN resulted in better OS and NCSM outcomes than RN. The benefit of PN in all-cause mortality was pronounced in patients with 4.0–5.5 cm tumor loads. Therefore, individualized treatment schemes should prioritize PN, when technically feasible.","PeriodicalId":39147,"journal":{"name":"Current Urology","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Partial versus radical nephrectomy for T1b renal cell carcinoma: A comparison of efficacy and prognostic factors based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database\",\"authors\":\"Kong Ren, Fei Wu, Haihu Wu, Hao Ning, Jiaju Lyu\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/cu9.0000000000000229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives This study compared the long-term efficacy and prognostic factors of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for T1bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Materials and methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 12,471 patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 RCC from the SEER database between 2010 and 2019. Patients were divided into the PN and RN groups, and propensity score matching was conducted to balance the differences between the groups. We compared overall survival (OS), RCC cancer–specific mortality (CSM), and noncancer-specific mortality (NCSM) between the two groups. The risk factors for all-cause and RCC-related mortality were analyzed. Results After propensity score matching, there were 3817 patients in each group. After matching, OS and NCSM were significantly longer in the PN group ( p < 0.001); however, there was no significant between-group difference in the RCC-CSM. The hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the PN group (HR, 0.671; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.579–0.778, p < 0.001), but PN was not associated with lower RCC-related mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that PN reduced the HR of all-cause mortality by 35% (HR, 0.647; 95% CI, 0.536–0.781; p < 0.001) in patients with 4.0- to 5.5-cm tumors compared with RN and by 29% (HR, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.559–0.899; p = 0.004) in those with larger tumors (5.6–7.0 cm). Multifactorial analysis showed that PN was an independent predictor of OS (HR, 0.671; 95% CI, 0.579–0.778; p < 0.001). In addition, multivariate analysis validated that age at diagnosis, sex, pathological grade, and tumor size were associated with outcomes. Conclusions In patients with T1b RCC, PN resulted in better OS and NCSM outcomes than RN. The benefit of PN in all-cause mortality was pronounced in patients with 4.0–5.5 cm tumor loads. Therefore, individualized treatment schemes should prioritize PN, when technically feasible.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Urology\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/cu9.0000000000000229\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/cu9.0000000000000229","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:目的:本研究利用监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据库的数据,比较部分肾切除术(PN)和根治性肾切除术(RN)治疗T1bN0M0型肾细胞癌(RCC)的长期疗效和预后因素。材料与方法回顾性分析2010年至2019年SEER数据库中12471例诊断为T1bN0M0 RCC的患者的临床资料。将患者分为PN组和RN组,并进行倾向评分匹配以平衡组间差异。我们比较了两组患者的总生存率(OS)、RCC癌症特异性死亡率(CSM)和非癌症特异性死亡率(NCSM)。分析全因死亡率和rcc相关死亡率的危险因素。结果经倾向评分匹配后,两组共3817例。配对后,PN组的OS和NCSM明显延长(p <0.001);RCC-CSM组间差异无统计学意义。全因死亡率的危险比(HR)在PN组显著降低(HR, 0.671;95%置信区间[CI], 0.579-0.778, p <0.001),但PN与较低的rcc相关死亡率无关。亚组分析显示,PN使全因死亡率HR降低35% (HR, 0.647;95% ci, 0.536-0.781;p & lt;0.001),与RN相比,4.0- 5.5 cm的肿瘤患者减少了29% (HR, 0.709;95% ci, 0.559-0.899;肿瘤较大(5.6 ~ 7.0 cm)者P = 0.004)。多因素分析显示,PN是OS的独立预测因子(HR, 0.671;95% ci, 0.579-0.778;p & lt;0.001)。此外,多变量分析证实,诊断时的年龄、性别、病理分级和肿瘤大小与结果相关。结论:在T1b RCC患者中,PN的OS和NCSM结果优于RN。在4.0-5.5 cm肿瘤负荷的患者中,PN对全因死亡率的益处是明显的。因此,在技术可行的情况下,个体化治疗方案应优先考虑PN。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Partial versus radical nephrectomy for T1b renal cell carcinoma: A comparison of efficacy and prognostic factors based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database
Abstract Objectives This study compared the long-term efficacy and prognostic factors of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) for T1bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Materials and methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 12,471 patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 RCC from the SEER database between 2010 and 2019. Patients were divided into the PN and RN groups, and propensity score matching was conducted to balance the differences between the groups. We compared overall survival (OS), RCC cancer–specific mortality (CSM), and noncancer-specific mortality (NCSM) between the two groups. The risk factors for all-cause and RCC-related mortality were analyzed. Results After propensity score matching, there were 3817 patients in each group. After matching, OS and NCSM were significantly longer in the PN group ( p < 0.001); however, there was no significant between-group difference in the RCC-CSM. The hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the PN group (HR, 0.671; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.579–0.778, p < 0.001), but PN was not associated with lower RCC-related mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that PN reduced the HR of all-cause mortality by 35% (HR, 0.647; 95% CI, 0.536–0.781; p < 0.001) in patients with 4.0- to 5.5-cm tumors compared with RN and by 29% (HR, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.559–0.899; p = 0.004) in those with larger tumors (5.6–7.0 cm). Multifactorial analysis showed that PN was an independent predictor of OS (HR, 0.671; 95% CI, 0.579–0.778; p < 0.001). In addition, multivariate analysis validated that age at diagnosis, sex, pathological grade, and tumor size were associated with outcomes. Conclusions In patients with T1b RCC, PN resulted in better OS and NCSM outcomes than RN. The benefit of PN in all-cause mortality was pronounced in patients with 4.0–5.5 cm tumor loads. Therefore, individualized treatment schemes should prioritize PN, when technically feasible.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Urology
Current Urology Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信