We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Does chromophobe renal cell carcinoma have better survival than clear cell renal cell carcinoma? A clinical-based cohort study and meta-analysis.
International Urology and Nephrology 2016 Februrary
BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) or clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is associated with better survival. We conducted a clinical-based cohort study and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic role of histology between chRCC and ccRCC.
METHODS: A cohort of 1540 patients (166 with chRCC and 1374 with ccRCC) were selected from Sun Yat-sen University and The Cancer Genome Atlas databases. The clinicopathological parameters and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with chRCC and those with ccRCC. For the meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for studies comparing OS or cancer-specific survival (CSS) between chRCC and ccRCC.
RESULTS: The cohort study revealed that patients with chRCC were younger (median 52 vs. 55 years, P < 0.001), were more commonly female (47.0 vs. 33.0%, P < 0.001), and had a larger tumor size (mean 7.1 vs. 5.9 cm, P < 0.001), and they had a lower stage compared with those with ccRCC. Five-year OS rates for chRCC and ccRCC were 90.3 and 75.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). We found significantly better survival for chRCC in stratification analysis by age, sex, tumor size, and stage. Similar results were observed on both univariate [hazard ratio (HR), 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.55, P < 0.001] and multivariate analyses (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.23-0.79, P = 0.006). Ten studies were included in our meta-analysis. Eight of them provided data on univariate analysis. The pooled HR was statistically significant for OS (pooled HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.30-0.79, P = 0.004) and CSS (pooled HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37-0.64, P < 0.001). Seven studies reported the HR on multivariate analysis. The pooled HR was also statistically significant for OS (pooled HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.77, P < 0.001) and CSS (pooled HR 0.72; 95 % CI 0.57-0.90, P = 0.003). These data indicate that patients with chRCC had better outcomes than those with ccRCC.
CONCLUSIONS: Our large cohort study and meta-analysis confirmed that chRCC had better survival than ccRCC.
METHODS: A cohort of 1540 patients (166 with chRCC and 1374 with ccRCC) were selected from Sun Yat-sen University and The Cancer Genome Atlas databases. The clinicopathological parameters and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with chRCC and those with ccRCC. For the meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for studies comparing OS or cancer-specific survival (CSS) between chRCC and ccRCC.
RESULTS: The cohort study revealed that patients with chRCC were younger (median 52 vs. 55 years, P < 0.001), were more commonly female (47.0 vs. 33.0%, P < 0.001), and had a larger tumor size (mean 7.1 vs. 5.9 cm, P < 0.001), and they had a lower stage compared with those with ccRCC. Five-year OS rates for chRCC and ccRCC were 90.3 and 75.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). We found significantly better survival for chRCC in stratification analysis by age, sex, tumor size, and stage. Similar results were observed on both univariate [hazard ratio (HR), 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.55, P < 0.001] and multivariate analyses (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.23-0.79, P = 0.006). Ten studies were included in our meta-analysis. Eight of them provided data on univariate analysis. The pooled HR was statistically significant for OS (pooled HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.30-0.79, P = 0.004) and CSS (pooled HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37-0.64, P < 0.001). Seven studies reported the HR on multivariate analysis. The pooled HR was also statistically significant for OS (pooled HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.77, P < 0.001) and CSS (pooled HR 0.72; 95 % CI 0.57-0.90, P = 0.003). These data indicate that patients with chRCC had better outcomes than those with ccRCC.
CONCLUSIONS: Our large cohort study and meta-analysis confirmed that chRCC had better survival than ccRCC.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app