de Bruijn Roderick E, Nijkamp Jasper, Noe Allard, Horenblas Simon, Haanen John B A G, Prevoo Warner, Bex Axel
Department of Urology, Sint Lucas Andreas Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Urol Oncol. 2016 Jun;34(6):258.e7-258.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.12.007. Epub 2016 Jan 25.
To analyze if prediction of survival for patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) could be further refined by baseline volume of the primary tumor, the metastases, or the remaining volume after surgery; this study was performed because survival expectancies of patients with intermediate-risk mRCC vary substantially.
The predictive value of the different volumes on overall survival (OS) was analyzed retrospectively in patients with intermediate Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk profile and ≤3 International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) factors, who received sunitinib in our institute. Tumor volumes were calculated on segmented computed tomography using in-house developed software. A multivariate analysis was performed including number of metastatic sites and baseline tumor burden (TB).
A total of 68 patients were included. Median OS for patients without cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) was 6 months (95% CI: 3.0-8.9mo) vs. 31 months (95% CI: 23.1-38.8mo) for those with CN, respectively. More second-line treatment was given after CN (49% vs. 17%, P = 0.125). There was no correlation between tumor volume and TB measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Of all included clinical and volumetric parameters, remaining volume after CN, CN status and 2 vs. 3 IMDC factors were significantly correlated with OS. In the Cox regression analysis, CN was the only remaining significant parameter (P = 0.003).
None of the baseline volumetric parameters is an independent prognostic factor in patients with intermediate MSKCC risk mRCC with≤3 IMDC factors receiving sunitinib. Only CN status correlated significantly with prognosis. None of the baseline volumes nor TB by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was associated with CN status, suggesting that extent of disease had no significant influence on the decision to perform surgery.
分析对于同时性转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)患者,能否通过原发肿瘤、转移灶的基线体积或术后剩余体积进一步优化生存预测;开展本研究是因为中危mRCC患者的预期生存期差异很大。
对 Memorial Sloan-Kettering癌症中心(MSKCC)风险评估为中危且国际转移性肾细胞癌数据库联盟(IMDC)因素≤3个、在我院接受舒尼替尼治疗的患者,回顾性分析不同体积对总生存期(OS)的预测价值。使用自行开发的软件在断层计算机体层摄影上计算肿瘤体积。进行多因素分析,包括转移部位数量和基线肿瘤负荷(TB)。
共纳入68例患者。未行减瘤性肾切除术(CN)患者的中位OS为6个月(95%CI:3.0 - 8.9个月),而行CN患者的中位OS为31个月(95%CI:23.1 - 38.8个月)。CN术后接受二线治疗的患者更多(49%对17%,P = 0.125)。根据实体瘤疗效评价标准测量的肿瘤体积与TB之间无相关性。在所有纳入的临床和体积参数中,CN术后剩余体积、CN状态以及2个与3个IMDC因素与OS显著相关。在Cox回归分析中,CN是唯一剩余的显著参数(P = 0.003)。
对于MSKCC风险评估为中危、IMDC因素≤3个且接受舒尼替尼治疗的mRCC患者,基线体积参数均不是独立的预后因素。只有CN状态与预后显著相关。基线体积和根据实体瘤疗效评价标准测量的TB均与CN状态无关,这表明疾病范围对手术决策没有显著影响。