Prognostic effect of preoperative serum albumin to globulin ratio in patients treated with cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)
albumin to globulin ratio (AGR)
cancer-specific survival (CSS)
cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN)
overall survival (OS)
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
entrez:
15
3
2021
pubmed:
16
3
2021
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate identification of ideal candidates for cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is an unmet need. We tested the association between preoperative value of systemic albumin to globulin ratio (AGR) and overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival (CSS) in mRCC patients treated with CN. mRCC patients treated with CN were included. The overall population was therefore divided into two AGR groups using cut-off of 1.43 (low, <1.43 Among 613 mRCC patients, 159 (26%) patients had an AGR <1.43. Median follow-up was 31 (IQR: 16-58) months. On univariable analysis, low preoperative serum AGR was significantly associated with both OS (HR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.26-1.89, P<0.001) and CSS (HR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.27-1.90, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, AGR <1.43 was associated with worse OS (HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.23-1.85, P<0.001) and CSS (HR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.24-1.86, P<0.001). The addition of AGR only minimally improved the discrimination of a base model that included established clinicopathologic features (C-index=0.640 In our study, low AGR before CN was associated with worse OS and CSS, particularly in intermediate risk patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Accurate identification of ideal candidates for cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is an unmet need. We tested the association between preoperative value of systemic albumin to globulin ratio (AGR) and overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival (CSS) in mRCC patients treated with CN.
METHODS
METHODS
mRCC patients treated with CN were included. The overall population was therefore divided into two AGR groups using cut-off of 1.43 (low, <1.43
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 613 mRCC patients, 159 (26%) patients had an AGR <1.43. Median follow-up was 31 (IQR: 16-58) months. On univariable analysis, low preoperative serum AGR was significantly associated with both OS (HR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.26-1.89, P<0.001) and CSS (HR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.27-1.90, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, AGR <1.43 was associated with worse OS (HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.23-1.85, P<0.001) and CSS (HR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.24-1.86, P<0.001). The addition of AGR only minimally improved the discrimination of a base model that included established clinicopathologic features (C-index=0.640
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In our study, low AGR before CN was associated with worse OS and CSS, particularly in intermediate risk patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33718063
doi: 10.21037/tau-20-1101
pii: tau-10-02-609
pmc: PMC7947468
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
609-619Informations de copyright
2021 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1101). Vitaly Margulis serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Andrology and Urology from Nov 2018 to Oct 2020. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
BJU Int. 2019 Jun;123(6):959-967
pubmed: 30653818
World J Urol. 2015 Dec;33(12):2045-52
pubmed: 25894368
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 1;27(34):5794-9
pubmed: 19826129
Cancer Treat Rev. 2008 May;34(3):193-205
pubmed: 18313224
Springerplus. 2016 Oct 28;5(1):1889
pubmed: 27843746
J Cancer. 2017 Oct 23;8(19):4002-4010
pubmed: 29187875
Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan;25(1):74-81
pubmed: 31531785
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec;11(4):288-92
pubmed: 25871569
Acta Oncol. 2011 Jun;50 Suppl 1:61-75
pubmed: 21604943
Oncotarget. 2016 Jul 16;8(32):52094-52103
pubmed: 28881716
Urol Oncol. 2010 Jul-Aug;28(4):389-400
pubmed: 20610277
Int Braz J Urol. 2018 Sep-Oct;44(5):933-946
pubmed: 29757575
N Engl J Med. 1999 Feb 11;340(6):448-54
pubmed: 9971870
Artif Organs. 2016 Apr;40(4):397-402
pubmed: 26365493
Curr Med Res Opin. 2019 Feb;35(2):275-282
pubmed: 29785861
Urol Oncol. 2017 Apr;35(4):135-141
pubmed: 28233671
J Lab Clin Med. 1948 Jun;33(6):662-71
pubmed: 18865745
J Cancer. 2018 Jun 12;9(13):2341-2348
pubmed: 30026830
Clin Chim Acta. 2018 Jan;476:81-91
pubmed: 29170102
Eur Urol. 2007 Dec;52(6):1601-9
pubmed: 17919807
Nature. 2002 Dec 19-26;420(6917):860-7
pubmed: 12490959
J Cancer. 2017 Jan 15;8(2):258-265
pubmed: 28243330
Ups J Med Sci. 2015;120(3):135-43
pubmed: 26220421
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jan 07;12(1):
pubmed: 31936065
Urol Oncol. 2014 Oct;32(7):1041-8
pubmed: 25027686
Cancer Manag Res. 2018 Oct 17;10:4695-4708
pubmed: 30410403
Oncotarget. 2017 Jul 18;8(29):48291-48302
pubmed: 28187463
Oncotarget. 2018 Feb 16;9(18):14296-14305
pubmed: 29581844