Baseline tumor volume in assessing prognosis of patients with intermediate-risk synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Abstract

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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).

OBJECTIVE

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

RESULTS

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).

More about this publication

Urologic oncology
  • Volume 34
  • Issue nr. 6
  • Pages 258.e7-258.e13
  • Publication date 01-06-2016

This site uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.