219: Impact of Increased Erythropoietin Receptor Expression and Elevated Serum Erythropoietin Levels on Clinicopathological Features and Prognosis in Renal Cell Carcinoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 73-73
Author(s):  
Keiichi Ito ◽  
Tomohiko Asano ◽  
Takaka Asano ◽  
Akinori Sato ◽  
Akio Horiguchi ◽  
...  
1997 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keiko Ohi ◽  
Hiroyasu Yamamoto ◽  
Takashi Shigematsu ◽  
Yoshindo Kawaguchi ◽  
Osamu Sakai ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
hualin song ◽  
Peng xiang ◽  
Zhifu liu ◽  
shuai hu ◽  
Jie Jin

Abstract Background: There are a mass of studies declared the prognostic significance of C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CRP/Alb) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Nevertheless, these works are controversial. In our study, we investigate the expression of CRP/Alb in RCC and its role in prognosis and clinicopathological features. Methods: The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched systematically for correlative articles published before August 1, 2019. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined according to eligible studies. And we use fixed and random effects models to calculate on the basis of heterogeneity. Results: Six relevant studies were identified in this study, 1959 participants included in total. Our results showed that CRP/Alb was related to poor overall survival (HR=1.86, 95% CI: 1.56-2.21). In addition, CRP/Alb was also associated with tumor stage (OR=3.29, 95% CI: 1.66-6.50), lymph node involvement (OR=3.76, 95% CI: 2.57-5.51), metastasis (OR=5.69, 95% CI: 2.40-13.51), Fuhrman nuclear grade (OR=4.21, 95% CI: 3.14-5.64), pTNM (OR=4.34, 95% CI: 1.94-9.70) and tumor size (WMD=2.26, 95% CI: 1.86–2.67). However, CRP/Alb was not associated with necrosis. Conclusion: Our study illustrates that the higher CRP/Alb expression was correlated with poorer prognosis and more advanced clinicopathological features in RCC patients. High CRP/Alb expression may act as a valuable predictive biomarker for poor prognosis in RCC patients.


2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuhiro Kobayashi ◽  
Toshihiro Saito ◽  
Yasuo Kitamura ◽  
Vladimir Bilim ◽  
Tomotaka Toba ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remi M. Adelaiye-Ogala ◽  
Sreenivasulu Chintala ◽  
Ashley Orillion ◽  
Piergiorgio Pettazzoni ◽  
May Elbanna ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Honghong Pan ◽  
Liefu Ye ◽  
Qingguo Zhu ◽  
Zesong Yang ◽  
Minxiong Hu

AbstractThe study aimed to compare the clinicopathological features and prognosis between type I and type II papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) and to investigate whether the subtypes of PRCC would affect oncological outcomes. A total of 102 patients with PRCC were recruited, of which 42 were type I PRCC and 60 type II. The clinicopathological features and oncologic outcomes of the patients were evaluated. The type II cases had a higher WHO/ISUP grading (P < 0.001), T (P = 0.003), N (P = 0.010) stage and stage grouping (P = 0.011) than the type I. During a median follow-up period of 61.4 months, 1-year cancer specific survival (CSS) of the type I was 100%, 5-year CSS was 95.2%, the 1-year CSS of the type II was 96.2%, and 5-year CSS was 75.7%. The univariate analysis showed that subtype, symptoms, TNM, stage grouping, WHO/ISUP grading and surgical methods appeared to affect prognosis of the patients with PRCC. However, multivariate analysis revealed that only stage grouping was the independent risk factor. After the stage grouping factor was adjusted for the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in CSS (P = 0.214) and PFS (P = 0.190) between the localized type I and type II PRCC groups. Compared with type I PRCC, type II had higher pathological T, N stage and WHO/ISUP grading. However, it was the Stage grouping that made a great difference to oncological outcomes, rather than the subtype of PRCC.


2005 ◽  
Vol 173 (6) ◽  
pp. 1897-1902 ◽  
Author(s):  
DIPEN J. PAREKH ◽  
MICHAEL S. COOKSON ◽  
WILLIAM CHAPMAN ◽  
FRANK HARRELL ◽  
NANCY WELLS ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document