» Articles » PMID: 30100757

Disparities of Age-based Cancer-specific Survival Improvement with Various Clinicopathologic Characteristics for Kidney Cancer

Overview
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Oncology
Date 2018 Aug 14
PMID 30100757
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Whether or not age is a predictor of kidney cancer survival is currently unknown but debated. It is also unknown whether improved kidney cancer survival is associated with age with particular clinicopathologic characteristics. The aim of this study was to evaluate kidney cancer survival in four age-based subgroups of patients by analyzing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-registered database.

Methods: Age-based survival disparity by sex, race, marital status, year of diagnosis, pathological grade, histological type, and stage was measured. The impact of age and further parameters on disease specific mortality was evaluated by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.

Results: Results showed that 8-year cancer-specific survival was 79.6% in those aged ≤49 years, 70.6% in those aged 50-64 years, 65.3% in those aged 65-74 years, and 56.0% in those aged 75-84 years. These differences were significant as judged by a univariate log-rank test (<0.001) and multivariate Cox regression (<0.001). Age-based survival improvement was most obvious in patients diagnosed from 2005 to 2009 and with the following clinicopathologic characteristics: female, white race, low pathological grade, and localized stage. There was no obvious disparity of age-based survival improvement with regard to marital status or histologic type. No age-based survival improvement was observed in patients of the black race, pathological grade IV, or distant stage (=0.05, =0.07, and =0.07, respectively).

Conclusion: These data suggest that age is an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with kidney cancer and that age-based survival improvement is associated with particular clinicopathologic characteristics.

Citing Articles

Patient, provider, and hospital factors associated with oral anti-neoplastic agent initiation and adherence in older patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Kaye D, Wilson L, Greiner M, Spees L, Pritchard J, Zhang T J Geriatr Oncol. 2022; 13(5):614-623.

PMID: 35125336 PMC: 9232903. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.01.008.


53 years old is a reasonable cut-off value to define young and old patients in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a study based on TCGA and SEER database.

Tang F, Lu Z, He C, Zhang H, Wu W, He Z BMC Cancer. 2021; 21(1):638.

PMID: 34051738 PMC: 8164798. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08376-5.


Pinin acts as a poor prognostic indicator for renal cell carcinoma by reducing apoptosis and promoting cell migration and invasion.

Jin M, Li D, Liu W, Wang P, Xiang Z, Liu K J Cell Mol Med. 2021; 25(9):4340-4348.

PMID: 33811436 PMC: 8093961. DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.16495.

References
1.
Nepple K, Yang L, Grubb 3rd R, Strope S . Population based analysis of the increasing incidence of kidney cancer in the United States: evaluation of age specific trends from 1975 to 2006. J Urol. 2011; 187(1):32-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.028. View

2.
Kang H, Seo S, Kim W, Yun S, Lee S, Kim W . Impact of Young Age at Diagnosis on Survival in Patients with Surgically Treated Renal Cell Carcinoma: a Multicenter Study. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31(12):1976-1982. PMC: 5102863. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1976. View

3.
Jeong I, Yoo C, Song K, Park J, Cho Y, Song C . Age at diagnosis is an independent predictor of small renal cell carcinoma recurrence-free survival. J Urol. 2009; 182(2):445-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.04.013. View

4.
Siegel R, Miller K, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(1):7-30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21442. View

5.
Taccoen X, Valeri A, Descotes J, Morin V, Stindel E, Doucet L . Renal cell carcinoma in adults 40 years old or less: young age is an independent prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival. Eur Urol. 2006; 51(4):980-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.025. View