IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0149420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Difference in Prognosis between Renal Sinus Fat and Perinephric Fat Invasion for pT3a Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zhiling Zhang
  • Chunping Yu
  • Liliya Velet
  • Yonghong Li
  • Lijuan Jiang
  • Fangjian Zhou

Abstract

Background: In the current Tumour-Node-Metastasis (TNM) classification system for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), both renal sinus fat invasion (SFI) and perinephric fat invasion (PFI) are defined as T3a, suggesting that the prognosis should be similar for the two pathologic findings. Several studies, however, have reported a worse prognosis for SFI in patients with a T3a tumor. In order to compare the prognosis of these two pathologic findings (SFI versus. PFI) in a more comprehensive way, this meta-analysis was performed. Methods: To identify relevant studies, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus database were searched from the inception until October 2014. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2 and STATA 11. Pooled Odds ratio (OR) and/or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to examine the risk or hazard association. Results: A total of 6 studies including 1031 patients qualified for analysis. T3a RCC patients with SFI were significantly associated with poor cancer specific survival(CSS) (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.19–1.83; P

Suggested Citation

  • Zhiling Zhang & Chunping Yu & Liliya Velet & Yonghong Li & Lijuan Jiang & Fangjian Zhou, 2016. "The Difference in Prognosis between Renal Sinus Fat and Perinephric Fat Invasion for pT3a Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0149420
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149420
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149420&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0149420?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0149420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.