TY - JOUR
T1 - Characterizing the Impact of Lymph Node Metastases on the Survival Outcome for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Targeted Therapies
AU - Kroeger, Nils
AU - Pantuck, Allan J.
AU - Wells, J. Connor
AU - Lawrence, Nicola
AU - Broom, Reuben
AU - Kim, Jenny J.
AU - Srinivas, Sandy
AU - Yim, Jessica
AU - Bjarnason, Georg A.
AU - Templeton, Arnoud
AU - Knox, Jennifer
AU - Bernstein, Ezra
AU - Smoragiewicz, Martin
AU - Lee, Jae
AU - Rini, Brian I.
AU - Vaishampayan, Ulka N.
AU - Wood, Lori A.
AU - Beuselinck, Benoit
AU - Donskov, Frede
AU - Choueiri, Toni K.
AU - Heng, Daniel Y.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 European Association of Urology.
PY - 2015/9/1
Y1 - 2015/9/1
N2 - Background It is unknown whether lymph node metastases (LNM) and their localization negatively affect clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Objective To evaluate the clinicopathological features, survival outcome, and treatment response in mRCC patients with LNM versus those without LNM after treatment with targeted therapies (TT). Design, setting, and participants Patients (n = 2996) were first analyzed without consideration of lymph node (LN) localization or histologic subtype. Additional analyses (n = 1536) were performed in subgroups of patients with supradiaphragmatic (SPD) LNM, subdiaphragmatic (SBD) LNM, and patients with LNM in both locations (SPD+/SBD+) without histologic considerations, and then separately in clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) patients, respectively. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Results and limitations All patients with LNM had worse PFS (p = 0.001) and OS (p < 0.001) compared to those without LNM. Compared to patients without LNM (PFS 8.8 mo; OS 25.1 mo), any SBD LNM involvement was associated with worse PFS (SBD, 6.8 mo; p = 0.003; SPD+/SBD+, 5.5 mo; p < 0.001) and OS (SBD, 16.2 mo; p < 0.001; SPD+/SBD+, 11.5 mo; p < 0.001). Both SBD and SPD+/SBD+ LNM were retained as independent prognostic factors in multivariate analyses (MVA) for PFS (p = 0.006 and p = 0.022, respectively) and OS (both p < 0.001), while SPD LNM was not an independent risk factor. Likewise, in ccRCC, SBD LNM (19.8 mo) and SPD+/SBD+ LNM (12.85 mo) patients had the worst OS. SPD+/SBD+ LNM (p = 0.006) and SBD LNM (p = 0.028) were independent prognostic factors for OS in MVA, while SPD LNM was not significant (p = 0.301). The study is limited by its retrospective design and the lack of pathologic evaluation of LNM in all cases. Conclusions The metastatic spread of RCC to SBD lymph nodes is associated with poor prognosis in mRCC patients treated with TT. Patient summary The presence of lymph node metastases below the diaphragm is associated with shorter survival outcome when metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients are treated with targeted therapies. Clinical trials should evaluate whether surgical removal of regional lymph nodes at the time of nephrectomy may improve outcomes in high-risk RCC patients.
AB - Background It is unknown whether lymph node metastases (LNM) and their localization negatively affect clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Objective To evaluate the clinicopathological features, survival outcome, and treatment response in mRCC patients with LNM versus those without LNM after treatment with targeted therapies (TT). Design, setting, and participants Patients (n = 2996) were first analyzed without consideration of lymph node (LN) localization or histologic subtype. Additional analyses (n = 1536) were performed in subgroups of patients with supradiaphragmatic (SPD) LNM, subdiaphragmatic (SBD) LNM, and patients with LNM in both locations (SPD+/SBD+) without histologic considerations, and then separately in clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) patients, respectively. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Results and limitations All patients with LNM had worse PFS (p = 0.001) and OS (p < 0.001) compared to those without LNM. Compared to patients without LNM (PFS 8.8 mo; OS 25.1 mo), any SBD LNM involvement was associated with worse PFS (SBD, 6.8 mo; p = 0.003; SPD+/SBD+, 5.5 mo; p < 0.001) and OS (SBD, 16.2 mo; p < 0.001; SPD+/SBD+, 11.5 mo; p < 0.001). Both SBD and SPD+/SBD+ LNM were retained as independent prognostic factors in multivariate analyses (MVA) for PFS (p = 0.006 and p = 0.022, respectively) and OS (both p < 0.001), while SPD LNM was not an independent risk factor. Likewise, in ccRCC, SBD LNM (19.8 mo) and SPD+/SBD+ LNM (12.85 mo) patients had the worst OS. SPD+/SBD+ LNM (p = 0.006) and SBD LNM (p = 0.028) were independent prognostic factors for OS in MVA, while SPD LNM was not significant (p = 0.301). The study is limited by its retrospective design and the lack of pathologic evaluation of LNM in all cases. Conclusions The metastatic spread of RCC to SBD lymph nodes is associated with poor prognosis in mRCC patients treated with TT. Patient summary The presence of lymph node metastases below the diaphragm is associated with shorter survival outcome when metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients are treated with targeted therapies. Clinical trials should evaluate whether surgical removal of regional lymph nodes at the time of nephrectomy may improve outcomes in high-risk RCC patients.
KW - Lymph node metastases
KW - Lymph nodes
KW - Renal cell carcinoma
KW - Survival outcome
KW - Targeted therapies
KW - Treatment response
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940580318&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940580318&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.054
DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.054
M3 - Article
C2 - 25524810
AN - SCOPUS:84940580318
SN - 0302-2838
VL - 68
SP - 506
EP - 515
JO - European Urology
JF - European Urology
IS - 3
M1 - 5988
ER -