Suppr超能文献

组织学分型对透明细胞和乳头状肾细胞癌结局的价值:一项荟萃分析。

The value of histologic subtyping on outcomes of clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas: a meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Pathology, Korea University, Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Urology. 2010 Oct;76(4):889-94. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.039. Epub 2010 Mar 28.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the survival differences among clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and type 1 and type 2 papillary RCCs by means of a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We combined data from studies published between 1997 and 2009. The effect sizes of overall survival were estimated by unadjusted or adjusted hazard ratio. Survival rates between clear cell RCC and nonclear cell RCC were compared by uni- and multivariate analyses of 3 studies including 2169 and 2455 patients, respectively. Survival outcomes between clear cell RCC and papillary RCC were compared by uni- and multivariate analyses of 17 studies involving 21,856 patients and 3 studies involving 3112 patients, respectively. Survival rates between type 1 and type 2 papillary RCCs were compared by uni- and multivariate analyses of 8 studies involving 634 patients and 5 studies involving 438 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

Patients with clear cell RCC had poorer survival than patients with nonclear cell type in univariate analysis (hazard ratio, 2.02; P < .001). The overall survival of patients with clear cell RCC was not different from that of patients with papillary RCC in uni- and multivariate analyses. Patients with type 2 papillary RCC had a poorer outcome than patients with type 1 papillary RCC in uni- and multivariate analyses (hazard ratios, 2.91 and 1.80; P < .001 and P = .044, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis confirms that clear cell RCC and papillary RCC are not different in survival outcomes. In addition, type 2 papillary RCC shows poorer survival than type 1 papillary RCC.

摘要

目的

通过荟萃分析研究透明细胞肾细胞癌(RCC)与 1 型和 2 型乳头状 RCC 之间的生存差异。

方法

我们结合了 1997 年至 2009 年期间发表的研究数据。通过非调整或调整后的危险比来估计总生存率的效应量。通过对 3 项研究(分别包括 2169 例和 2455 例患者)进行单变量和多变量分析,比较透明细胞 RCC 和非透明细胞 RCC 之间的生存率。通过对 17 项研究(涉及 21856 例患者和 3 项研究涉及 3112 例患者)进行单变量和多变量分析,比较透明细胞 RCC 和乳头状 RCC 之间的生存结果。通过对 8 项研究(分别涉及 634 例和 5 项研究涉及 438 例患者)进行单变量和多变量分析,比较 1 型和 2 型乳头状 RCC 之间的生存率。

结果

在单变量分析中,透明细胞 RCC 患者的生存状况不如非透明细胞型患者(危险比,2.02;P <.001)。在单变量和多变量分析中,透明细胞 RCC 患者的总体生存率与乳头状 RCC 患者无差异。在单变量和多变量分析中,2 型乳头状 RCC 患者的预后均差于 1 型乳头状 RCC 患者(危险比分别为 2.91 和 1.80;P <.001 和 P =.044)。

结论

荟萃分析证实透明细胞 RCC 和乳头状 RCC 的生存结果无差异。此外,2 型乳头状 RCC 的生存状况较 1 型乳头状 RCC 差。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验