Dataset Information

Epidemiology of Renal Cell Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Despite the improvement in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) diagnosis and management observed during the last 2 decades, RCC remains one of the most lethal urological malignancies. With the expansion of routine imaging for many disorders, an increasing number of patients who harbour RCC are identified incidentally.

Objective

To summarise and compare RCC incidence and mortality rates, analyse the magnitude of risk factors, and interpret these epidemiological observations in the context of screening and disease management.

Evidence acquisition

The primary objective of the current review was to retrieve and describe worldwide RCC incidence/mortality rates. Secondly, a narrative literature review about the magnitude of the known risk factors was performed. Finally, data retrieved from the first two steps were elaborated to define the clinical implications for RCC screening.

Evidence synthesis

RCC incidence and mortality significantly differ among individual countries and world regions. Potential RCC risk factors include behavioural and environmental factors, comorbidities, and analgesics. Smoking, obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease represent established risk factors. Other factors have been associated with an increased RCC risk, although selection biases may be present and controversial results have been reported.

Conclusions

Incidence of RCC varies worldwide. Within the several RCC risk factors identified, smoking, obesity, and hypertension are most strongly associated with RCC. In individuals at a higher risk of RCC, the cost effectiveness of a screening programme needs to be assessed on a country-specific level due to geographic heterogeneity in incidence and mortality rates, costs, and management implications. Owing to the low rates of RCC, implementation of accurate biomarkers appears to be mandatory.

Patient summary

The probability of harbouring kidney cancer is higher in developed countries and among smokers, obese individuals, and individuals with hypertension.

SUBMITTER: Capitanio U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8397918 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To investigate the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) findings of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) associated with Xp11.2 translocation/TFE3 gene fusion (Xp11.2/TFE3) in adult patients by comparison with those of clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and papillary RCC (pRCC). METHODS:In total, 110 patients (110 renal masses) who underwent CEUS examinations were enrolled in this study. The cases included 18 Xp11.2/TFE3 RCCs, 60 ccRCCs and 32 pRCCs. All masses were confirmed by operative pathology. The CEUS imaging data of these patients were retrospectively analysed by two readers. The conventional US and CEUS features of Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC were compared with those of ccRCC and pRCC. RESULTS:The age of the patients with Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC ranged from 20 to 68?years, with a mean age of 38.3?±?16.3?years and a slight female predominance. The weighted kappa value that interprets the concordance between the interobserver agreement of the US and CEUS features ranged from 0.61 to 0.89. On conventional US and CEUS imaging of Xp11.2/TFE3 RCCs, the tumours were hypoechoic (6/18, 33.3%), isoechoic (8/18, 44.4%), and hyperechoic (4/18, 22.2%). The cystic component was present in 5 cases (27.8%), calcification was present in 9 cases (50.0%), and colour flow signal was present in 7 cases (38.9%). Most cases showed simultaneous wash-in (11/18, 61.1%); the peak enhancement showed hypoenhancement (6/18, 33.3%), isoenhancement (10/18, 55.6%), and hyperenhancement (2/18, 11.1%); most cases exhibited heterogeneous enhancement (12/18, 66.7%) and fast- or simultaneous-out (16/18, 88.9%); and a pseudocapsule was present in 6 cases (33.3%). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, calcification and lower peak enhancement were more likely to be present in Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC than in ccRCC (P?<?0.05), and younger age and relatively high peak enhancement were more likely to be present in Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC than in pRCC (P?<?0.05). The calcification combined peak enhancement model differentiated Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from ccRCC, and the age combined peak enhancement model differentiated Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from pRCC with an AUC, a sensitivity and a specificity of 0.896, 94.4% and 73.3% and 0.786, 50.0% and 100.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The specific CEUS features combined with demographic information and clinical symptoms may be helpful for differentiating Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from ccRCC and pRCC.