000128703 001__ 128703
000128703 005__ 20240228145547.0
000128703 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1371/journal.pone.0184173
000128703 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:28934212
000128703 0247_ $$2pmc$$apmc:PMC5608215
000128703 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:70368916
000128703 037__ $$aDKFZ-2017-04718
000128703 041__ $$aeng
000128703 082__ $$a500
000128703 1001_ $$00000-0002-5029-8656$$aWagener, Nina$$b0
000128703 245__ $$aOutcome of papillary versus clear cell renal cell carcinoma varies significantly in non-metastatic disease.
000128703 260__ $$aLawrence, Kan.$$bPLoS$$c2017
000128703 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000128703 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000128703 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1511259051_9899
000128703 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000128703 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000128703 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000128703 520__ $$aRenal cell carcinoma (RCC) comprises a heterogenous group of tumors. Traditionally, papillary RCC (pRCC) is associated with a favorable outcome compared to clear cell RCC (ccRCC), while other series report equivalent or worse prognosis. In this paper we comparatively evaluate outcome of pRCC versus ccRCC in two large multi-institutional databases (cohort study), including distribution of pRCC subtypes 1 and 2. Retrospective data of 1,943 surgically treated pRCC patients from 17 European/ North American centers between 1984-2015 were compared to 5,600 ccRCC patients from a database comprising 11 European/ North American centers (1984-2011). Median follow-up was 64.6 months. Differences between pRCC, subtypes, and ccRCC were compared with t-tests, Chi^2-tests, and exact Fisher tests. Cancer-specific mortality was analyzed with cumulative incidence curves and Cox cause-specific hazard models. The robustness of our results was examined with sensitivity analyses. We present that cancer-specific mortality rates and variables as stage, lymph node, and distant metastasis differ significantly between groups. Furthermore, we demonstrate that patients with non-metastatic pRCC had a significantly better cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.76, p = 0.007), when compared to ccRCC. Additionally, pRCC type 2 versus ccRCC exhibited no difference in cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.9, p = 0.722), whereas pRCC type 1 versus ccRCC displayed a risk of death reduced by 69% (p = 0.044). Taken together, outcome of pRCC versus ccRCC varies significantly in non-metastatic disease. Furthermore, pRCC type 2 exhibited no difference in cancer-specific mortality, whereas pRCC type 1 displayed a significantly reduced risk of death. Consequently, there is urgent need to respect histopathological entities and their subtypes, when assigning follow-up or targeted therapy to RCC patients.
000128703 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$a313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)$$cPOF3-313$$fPOF III$$x0
000128703 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000128703 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)92820b4867c955a04f642707ecf35b40$$aEdelmann, Dominic$$b1$$udkfz
000128703 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)e15dfa1260625c69d6690a197392a994$$aBenner, Axel$$b2$$udkfz
000128703 7001_ $$aZigeuner, Richard$$b3
000128703 7001_ $$aBorgmann, Hendrik$$b4
000128703 7001_ $$aWolff, Ingmar$$b5
000128703 7001_ $$aKrabbe, Laura M$$b6
000128703 7001_ $$aMusquera, Mireia$$b7
000128703 7001_ $$aDell'Oglio, Paolo$$b8
000128703 7001_ $$aCapitanio, Umberto$$b9
000128703 7001_ $$aKlatte, Tobias$$b10
000128703 7001_ $$aCindolo, Luca$$b11
000128703 7001_ $$aMay, Matthias$$b12
000128703 7001_ $$aBrookman-May, Sabine D$$b13
000128703 7001_ $$aUrology, European Association of$$b14$$eCollaboration Author
000128703 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2267670-3$$a10.1371/journal.pone.0184173$$gVol. 12, no. 9, p. e0184173 -$$n9$$pe0184173 -$$tPLoS one$$v12$$x1932-6203$$y2017
000128703 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:128703$$pVDB
000128703 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)92820b4867c955a04f642707ecf35b40$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b1$$kDKFZ
000128703 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)e15dfa1260625c69d6690a197392a994$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b2$$kDKFZ
000128703 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vCancer risk factors and prevention$$x0
000128703 9141_ $$y2017
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bPLOS ONE : 2015
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0501$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ Seal
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0500$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ
000128703 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV$$2V:(DE-HGF)$$aCreative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)$$bDOAJ
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1040$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bZoological Record
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews
000128703 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000128703 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331$$kC060$$lBiostatistik$$x0
000128703 980__ $$ajournal
000128703 980__ $$aVDB
000128703 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
000128703 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED