Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging?

Bimal Bhindi, Christine M. Lohse, Ross J. Mason, Mary E. Westerman, John C. Cheville, Matthew K. Tollefson, Stephen A. Boorjian, R. Houston Thompson, Bradley C. Leibovich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the predictive ability for oncologic outcomes among current tumor size cut-points and clinically relevant alternatives to determine which are optimal. Methods: Patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy between 1970 and 2010 for T1-2Nx/N0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were identified. Associations between tumor size and progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox models. Predictive ability was assessed using c-indexes. Results: The cohort included 3304 patients with a median age of 63 years (interquartile range 53, 70). Median follow-up among survivors was 9.9 years (interquartile range 6.9, 14.3). There were 536 patients who progressed and 354 who died from RCC. For RCC tumors ≤3.0 cm, 10-year PFS and CSS rates were 93%-95% and 97%-99%, respectively. For tumors >3.0-4.0 cm, PFS and CSS began to decline (91% and 95%, respectively), with further gradual declines in PFS and CSS with increasing tumor size. Plots of hazard ratios for progression and RCC death as a function of tumor size did not reveal major inflection points. Differences in discrimination based on various combinations of tumor-size cut-points for progression or RCC death were small, with c-indexes ranging between 0.691-0.704 and 0.734-0.750, respectively. Conclusion: RCC tumors ≤3.0 cm in size are associated with favorable outcomes. Thereafter, risks of progression and RCC death increase gradually with tumor size, with no compelling biological reason to endorse a given cut-point over another.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalUrology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Renal Cell Carcinoma
Neoplasms
Disease-Free Survival
Cell Death
Survival
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Nephrectomy
Proportional Hazards Models
Survivors
Survival Rate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Bhindi, B., Lohse, C. M., Mason, R. J., Westerman, M. E., Cheville, J. C., Tollefson, M. K., ... Leibovich, B. C. (Accepted/In press). Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging? Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.010

Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging? / Bhindi, Bimal; Lohse, Christine M.; Mason, Ross J.; Westerman, Mary E.; Cheville, John C.; Tollefson, Matthew K.; Boorjian, Stephen A.; Thompson, R. Houston; Leibovich, Bradley C.

In: Urology, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bhindi, B, Lohse, CM, Mason, RJ, Westerman, ME, Cheville, JC, Tollefson, MK, Boorjian, SA, Thompson, RH & Leibovich, BC 2017, 'Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging?', Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.010
Bhindi B, Lohse CM, Mason RJ, Westerman ME, Cheville JC, Tollefson MK et al. Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging? Urology. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.010
Bhindi, Bimal ; Lohse, Christine M. ; Mason, Ross J. ; Westerman, Mary E. ; Cheville, John C. ; Tollefson, Matthew K. ; Boorjian, Stephen A. ; Thompson, R. Houston ; Leibovich, Bradley C. / Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging?. In: Urology. 2017.
@article{056f1df0eb26409287a82155ef2e6611,
title = "Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging?",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the predictive ability for oncologic outcomes among current tumor size cut-points and clinically relevant alternatives to determine which are optimal. Methods: Patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy between 1970 and 2010 for T1-2Nx/N0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were identified. Associations between tumor size and progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox models. Predictive ability was assessed using c-indexes. Results: The cohort included 3304 patients with a median age of 63 years (interquartile range 53, 70). Median follow-up among survivors was 9.9 years (interquartile range 6.9, 14.3). There were 536 patients who progressed and 354 who died from RCC. For RCC tumors ≤3.0 cm, 10-year PFS and CSS rates were 93{\%}-95{\%} and 97{\%}-99{\%}, respectively. For tumors >3.0-4.0 cm, PFS and CSS began to decline (91{\%} and 95{\%}, respectively), with further gradual declines in PFS and CSS with increasing tumor size. Plots of hazard ratios for progression and RCC death as a function of tumor size did not reveal major inflection points. Differences in discrimination based on various combinations of tumor-size cut-points for progression or RCC death were small, with c-indexes ranging between 0.691-0.704 and 0.734-0.750, respectively. Conclusion: RCC tumors ≤3.0 cm in size are associated with favorable outcomes. Thereafter, risks of progression and RCC death increase gradually with tumor size, with no compelling biological reason to endorse a given cut-point over another.",
author = "Bimal Bhindi and Lohse, {Christine M.} and Mason, {Ross J.} and Westerman, {Mary E.} and Cheville, {John C.} and Tollefson, {Matthew K.} and Boorjian, {Stephen A.} and Thompson, {R. Houston} and Leibovich, {Bradley C.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.010",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are We Using the Best Tumor Size Cut-points for Renal Cell Carcinoma Staging?

AU - Bhindi, Bimal

AU - Lohse, Christine M.

AU - Mason, Ross J.

AU - Westerman, Mary E.

AU - Cheville, John C.

AU - Tollefson, Matthew K.

AU - Boorjian, Stephen A.

AU - Thompson, R. Houston

AU - Leibovich, Bradley C.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objective: To compare the predictive ability for oncologic outcomes among current tumor size cut-points and clinically relevant alternatives to determine which are optimal. Methods: Patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy between 1970 and 2010 for T1-2Nx/N0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were identified. Associations between tumor size and progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox models. Predictive ability was assessed using c-indexes. Results: The cohort included 3304 patients with a median age of 63 years (interquartile range 53, 70). Median follow-up among survivors was 9.9 years (interquartile range 6.9, 14.3). There were 536 patients who progressed and 354 who died from RCC. For RCC tumors ≤3.0 cm, 10-year PFS and CSS rates were 93%-95% and 97%-99%, respectively. For tumors >3.0-4.0 cm, PFS and CSS began to decline (91% and 95%, respectively), with further gradual declines in PFS and CSS with increasing tumor size. Plots of hazard ratios for progression and RCC death as a function of tumor size did not reveal major inflection points. Differences in discrimination based on various combinations of tumor-size cut-points for progression or RCC death were small, with c-indexes ranging between 0.691-0.704 and 0.734-0.750, respectively. Conclusion: RCC tumors ≤3.0 cm in size are associated with favorable outcomes. Thereafter, risks of progression and RCC death increase gradually with tumor size, with no compelling biological reason to endorse a given cut-point over another.

AB - Objective: To compare the predictive ability for oncologic outcomes among current tumor size cut-points and clinically relevant alternatives to determine which are optimal. Methods: Patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy between 1970 and 2010 for T1-2Nx/N0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were identified. Associations between tumor size and progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox models. Predictive ability was assessed using c-indexes. Results: The cohort included 3304 patients with a median age of 63 years (interquartile range 53, 70). Median follow-up among survivors was 9.9 years (interquartile range 6.9, 14.3). There were 536 patients who progressed and 354 who died from RCC. For RCC tumors ≤3.0 cm, 10-year PFS and CSS rates were 93%-95% and 97%-99%, respectively. For tumors >3.0-4.0 cm, PFS and CSS began to decline (91% and 95%, respectively), with further gradual declines in PFS and CSS with increasing tumor size. Plots of hazard ratios for progression and RCC death as a function of tumor size did not reveal major inflection points. Differences in discrimination based on various combinations of tumor-size cut-points for progression or RCC death were small, with c-indexes ranging between 0.691-0.704 and 0.734-0.750, respectively. Conclusion: RCC tumors ≤3.0 cm in size are associated with favorable outcomes. Thereafter, risks of progression and RCC death increase gradually with tumor size, with no compelling biological reason to endorse a given cut-point over another.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028570505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028570505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.010

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 28412331

AN - SCOPUS:85028570505

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

ER -