[Prognosis factors in XXXX renal carcinoma].

@entity1 @entity1803 @entity1358 @entity189
OBJECTIVES: To identify independent predictors of progression and global survival in @entity1 affected by @entity1803 @entity1358 . To make risk groups by risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated 117 @entity1 with @entity1803 @entity1358 . 88 was M0 and 29 M1. Most frequent clinical feature: asintomatic @entity1 . 80 males (69%) and 37 females (31%). Mean age 59 (24-82). Median follow up 34 months (mean 44 +/- 39 months). RESULTS: Pathological stage (TNM 1997) was pT3a in 52 @entity1 (43.6%), pT3b 63 @entity1 (53.6%) and pT3c 2 @entity1 . HISTOLOGY: clear cell @entity189 106 @entity1 (90.6%), papillary 5 @entity1 (4.3%) an dchromophobe 4 @entity1 (3.4%). Nuclear grading according Fuhrman's classification: G1 13 @entity1 , G2 45 @entity1 , G3 32 and G4 12 @entity1 . Size > 4 cm (p = 0.005/p = 0.0019), grade 3-4 (p = 0.006/p = 0.0007), N+ (p = 0.034/p = 0.009) and M+ (p = 0.035/p = 0.042) were independent prognosis factors for progression and global survival of the @entity1803 @entity1358 . @entity1 M0 with 0 or 1 risk factor have better global survival tanh @entity1 M0 with 3 or 4 risk factors and @entity1 M1. CONCLUSIONS: Size, grade, N+ and M+ were independent prognosis factors for progression and global survival of the @entity1803 @entity1358 . Tera are no differencies in global survival between @entity1 M0 with 2 or 3 risk factors and @entity1 M1.
