Clinicopathological Characteristics and Survival Outcome among Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Northern Malaysian Experience

Abstract

Background

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the 12th highest cause of cancer mortality in Malaysia with 532 deaths recorded in 2020. This study aims to determine the prognostic significance of the clinicopathological factors among RCC patients at a Malaysian hospital.

Methods

Medical records of 104 patients with confirmed primary RCC who underwent nephrectomy from 2015 to 2020 at our center were retrospectively reviewed. The relationship between clinical and histopathological data and survival was studied using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses to determine prognostic significance. Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests were employed for survival analysis.

Results

The 5-year cancer-specific survival was 71.2% with a median follow-up of 14 months (interquartile range 5–38 months). Symptoms of loin pain (p = 0.004, hazard ratio [HR] 2.9) or anemia (p = 0.001, HR: 3.6), lower body mass index (p = 0.001, HR 0.88), smoking (p = 0.002, HR 3.3), larger tumors (p < 0.001, HR 1.2), nodal involvement (p < 0.001, HR 7.6), higher International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade (p < 0.001, HR 2.7), and sarcomatoid features (p < 0.001, HR 16.6) have worse prognosis. Multivariate analysis, adjusted for TNM stage, found smoking (p = 0.002, HR 3.3), larger tumor size (p = 0.048, HR 1.1), nodal involvement (p = 0.009, HR 2.8), higher ISUP grade (p = 0.010, HR 2.0), and sarcomatoid histology (p = 0.001, HR 5.8) to be independent prognostic parameters for overall survival.

Conclusion

Detection and treatment of RCC before symptomatic onset or metastases confer a better prognosis. A history of smoking negatively affects survival. Presence of nodal involvement, venous infiltration, or sarcomatoid component in histopathological study was significantly associated with increased mortality.

Keywords

clinicopathological - Malaysia - prognosis - renal cell carcinoma - survival

Yiie Huern Seo

Introduction

In Malaysia, renal malignancies account for the 12th highest cause of cancer death, with 532 cases (1.8% of all cancer deaths) recorded in 2020.[1] There has been a significant increase in the global incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) due to better screening program and improvements in imaging technologies, which have led to increased incidental findings of asymptomatic, localized renal tumors.[2] Data on RCC prognostics and mortality are limited in Malaysia. We present a report from a tertiary center in northern Malaysia on prognostic and survival data among renal cancer patients. Identifying clinicopathological risk factors may offer prognostic insight to aid patient discussions and improve treatment outcomes.

Materials and Methods

Data Sources

A retrospective review of the Cancer Registry database of Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah Alor Setar (HSBAS), covering the period from January 2015 to December 2020, was performed. Clinical and histopathological data on patients with RCC managed surgically at HSBAS were collected. Follow-up duration and mortality status were retrieved via the electronic medical record or phone call. The 8th edition of TNM staging proposed by the American Joint Committee on Cancer was used for pathological tumor staging. Tumor grading was assigned according to the World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system. The survival status of patients was obtained from the patient's record and Malaysian National Registration Department. Ethical approval was formally obtained from the National Medical Research Registry (NMRR) Ethical Committee (Ref no: NMRR ID-23–02310-U7Y).

Study Sample

The study cohort comprised adult patients aged 18 to 90 years with histopathologically confirmed RCC (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code: C64) who were selected from the cancer registry database. Patients who underwent surgery or received initial treatment at other health care centers were excluded. Patients with insufficient clinical data or who defaulted on follow-up appointments were also excluded from this cohort.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 (IBM, United States). Overall survival based on the clinicopathological prognostic factors was determined using the Cox proportional hazards regression method, with hazard ratio (HR) as the measure. Factors that were shown to have statistical significance in univariate analysis were then further subjected to multivariate analysis. Survival curves and survival rates were derived from Kaplan–Meier and life table analyses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to have statistical significance.

Results

A total of 104 patients with RCC who underwent nephrectomy in HSBAS were included. We observed that higher body mass index, smoking habit, and symptomatic presentations are significantly associated with an unfavorable prognosis. The baseline demographics are shown in [Table 1].

Table 1 Baseline clinical characteristics

Characteristics	Number of cases, n (%)	p-Value
Mean age (range), y	58.5 (28–88)	0.599
Young age (≤ 40 years) (%)	10 (9.6)	0.896
Men/Women (%)	70.2/29.8	0.851
Ethnicity (%)		0.640
Malay Chinese Indian	68 (65.4) 29 (27.9) 7 (6.7)
Mean BMI	24.6 ± 5.5	0.001*
Smoking habit (%)	40 (38.5)	0.002*
Diabetes mellitus (%)	25 (24.0)	0.252
Symptoms (%)		0.043*
Incidental Hematuria Loin pain Hematuria and loin pain Anemia Others	32 (30.8) 40 (38.5) 18 (17.3) 5 (4.8) 34 (31.5) 6 (5.8)

Abbreviation: BMI, body mass index.

* denotes p-value is significant (<0.05).

When histopathological data were reviewed, we found that larger tumor size, higher pathological T staging, nodal involvement, metastatic spread, higher ISUP grading, variant histologies, and sarcomatoid changes on histology are predictive of worse prognosis. The perioperative and histological characteristics are presented in [Table 2].

Table 2 Perioperative and histological characteristics

Characteristics	Number of cases, n (%)	p-Value
Mean tumor size (range) (cm)	7.5 ± 4.1	< 0.001*
Pathological stage (%)		0.002*
pT1  pT2  PT3  pT4	34 (32.7) 21 (20.2) 42 (40.4) 7 (6.7)
Tumor spread (%)		< 0.001*
Organ confined (T1–2N0M0)  Locally advanced (T3–4N0M0)  Metastatic (TanyN1M0 or TanyN0M1)	39 (37.5) 29 (27.9) 36 (34.6)
Venous invasion (%)	11 (10.6)	0.212
Perinephric or sinus fat invasion (%)	31 (29.8)	0.130
Adrenal involvement (%)	2 (1.9)	0.656
Nodal involvement (%)	16 (15.4)	< 0.001*
Histology (%)		< 0.001*
Clear cell  Papillary  Chromophobe  Acquired cystic disease  Collecting duct  Mucinous tubular and spindle cell  Tubulocystic  Squamous cell  Unclassified	74 (71.2) 10 (9.6) 6 (5.8) 5 (4.8) 2 (1.9) 2 (1.9) 2 (1.9) 1 (1.0) 2 (1.9)
Sarcomatoid changes	5 (4.8%)	< 0.001*
WHO/ISUP grade (%)		<0.001*
Grade I  Grade II  Grade III  Grade IV	14 (13.5) 42 (40.4) 29 (27.9) 68 (7.7)

Abbreviation: WHO/ISUP, World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology.

Over a median follow-up period of 14 months (interquartile range 5–38), the 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 71.2% ([Table 3]). Symptomatic patients showed worse survival (p = 0.043, HR 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–7.07). RCC TNM staging significantly affected survival (p < 0.001), with stage 4 patients demonstrating the worst prognosis ([Fig. 1]).

Table 3 5-year cancer-specific survival of RCC patients

Stage (%)
I II III IV Overall	95.3 88.2 77.8 31.4 71.2

Abbreviation: RCC, renal cell carcinoma.

Fig. 1 Pathological staging affects cancer-specific survival probability.

When adjusted for TNM stage in a multivariate analysis, smoking habit (p = 0.003, HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.50–6.82), larger tumor size (p = 0.042, HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00–1.16), nodal metastasis (p = 0.005, HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.41–6.64), ISUP grading (p = 0.008, HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.21–3.58), and sarcomatoid features (p = 0.001, HR 5.94, 95% CI 2.01–17.59) were found to be significant independent prognostic parameters for RCC cancer-specific survival ([Table 4]).

Table 4 Univariate and multivariate analysis of clinicopathological factors with renal cell carcinoma cancer-specific survival

	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
	HR	95% CI	p-Value	HR	95% CI	p-Value
BMI	0.875	0.809–0.946	0.001*	0.926	0.851–1.007	0.071
Smoking	3.329	1.583–7.002	0.002*	3.256	1.526–6.948	0.002*
Symptomatic	2.702	1.033–7.070	0.043*	1.830	0.698–4.800	0.219
Loin pain	2.942	1.411–6.136	0.004*	1.364	0.646–2.878	0.416
Anemia	3.551	1.717–7.343	0.001*	1.529	0.723–3.234	0.267
Tumor size	1.154	1.074–1.241	< 0.001*	1.075	1.001–1.154	0.048*
Nodal spread	7.595	3.631–15.887	< 0.001*	2.777	1.291–5.973	0.009*
ISUP	2.695	1.654–4.391	< 0.001*	2.047	1.184–3.539	0.010*
Sarcomatoid	16.571	5.638–48.706	< 0.001*	5.784	1.958–17.086	0.001*
Variant histology	9.193	2.046–41.303	0.004*	3.300	0.731–14.907	0.121

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; ISUP, International Society of Urological Pathology.

Discussion

The incidence of RCC in Malaysia is growing and accounts for approximately 2% of cancer deaths locally. The 5-year survival for RCC patients in our study is 71%, which is marginally higher than the 69% survival reported by the University Malaya Medical Center in 2013.[3] At HSBAS, the 5-year cancer-specific survival for stage I is 95%, 83% for stage II/III, and 31% for stage IV, which is comparable to data obtained regionally.[3] [4]

In our study population, the distribution of RCC among the various ethnic groups was found to be similar to that reported by the Malaysian cancer registry.[5] We did not find that younger patients below 40 years of age had significantly more advanced tumors or poorer survival. We also observed no significance between gender and renal cancer disease survival in our analysis. Up to 30% of the patients in this study had RCC found incidentally on imaging studies. Asymptomatic incidental tumors are significantly associated with better prognostic outcomes. Obesity was found to be associated with an increased risk of RCC, which was postulated to be due to elevated levels of fasting serum and free insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) that contribute to the growth and proliferation of renal cell cancer.[6] Patients with a cigarette smoking habit were identified to be at an increased risk of death compared with nonsmokers (HR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.5–6.9).

We have also demonstrated that tumor size, as a continuous variable in a proportional hazards regression model, exhibited a strong association with survival (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1–1.2). This relationship is evident even after adjusting for TNM staging on multivariate testing (HR = 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0–1.2). The prevalence of node-positive renal cell cancer ranges from 2 to 10%.[7] Our results indicated that nodal involvement independently predicts RCC cancer-specific survival both univariably and multivariably (HR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.3–6.0).

There has been a consensus that the primary morphotypes of RCC are of prognostication significance, and our findings paralleled that reflection. The higher the ISUP grade, the poorer the survival outcome of our cohort (HR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2–3.5). It is also established that sarcomatoid changes are indicators of poor prognosis with implications for treatment effectiveness.[8] [9] [10] Sarcomatoid histology among our patients was associated with significantly worse cancer-specific survival (HR = 5.8, 95% CI = 2.0–17.1). Among the five most common histological subtypes, it is shown that patients with collecting duct and unclassified RCC variants have the poorest outcomes.[11] Our study also demonstrates a worse prognosis for patients with variant histology, especially in collecting duct RCC, but this difference disappears after adjusting for disease stage.[12]

In the present study, we characterized the clinical and pathological data and prognosticated survival outcomes among RCC patients during a 5-year period at a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Early diagnostic detection and treatment of RCC before the onset of clinical symptoms or metastatic status confer better survival. Tobacco smoking history negatively affects survival. The presence of nodal involvement, venous infiltration, or sarcomatoid morphology on operative histology was significantly associated with a worse prognosis.

The limitations encountered include this being a single-center experience and retrospective in nature. The sample size volume was also a limitation in our study, as it was derived from a single-center database. Despite these limitations, the findings reported in our study provide invaluable information for improving RCC patient long-term management and disease outcome. We hope that our data can serve as a reference for further research on renal cancers in a Malaysian-based population with its diverse ethnic background. The establishment of a multi-institutional database among RCC patients in Malaysia would provide more accurate prognostication of survival and mortality.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank the Director General of Health Malaysia for his permission to publish this paper. Portions of this study was published in abstract form and presented at the 30th Malaysian Urological Conference in November 2021.

Ethics of the Study

This study complies with ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and Malaysian Good Clinical Practice Guideline. The study has been registered under the Malaysian National Medical Research Register and obtained ethics approval from the Malaysian Research Ethics Committee.

• References

• 1 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (03) 209-249
• 2 Medina-Rico M, Ramos HL, Lobo M, Romo J, Prada JG. Epidemiology of renal cancer in developing countries: Review of the literature. Can Urol Assoc J 2018; 12 (03) E154-E162
• 3 Yap NY, Ng KL, Ong TA. et al. Clinical prognostic factors and survival outcome in renal cell carcinoma patients–a Malaysian single centre perspective. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14 (12) 7497-7500
• 4 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68 (06) 394-424
• 5 Singam P, Ho C, Hong GE. et al. Clinical characteristics of renal cancer in Malaysia: a ten year review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010; 11 (02) 503-506
• 6 Turco F, Tucci M, Di Stefano RF. et al. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC): fatter is better? A review on the role of obesity in RCC. Endocr Relat Cancer 2021; 28 (07) R207-R216
• 7 Kim K, Zhou Q, Christie A. et al. Determinants of renal cell carcinoma invasion and metastatic competence. Nat Commun 2021; 12 (01) 5760
• 8 Tacconi EMC, Tuthill M, Protheroe A. Review of adjuvant therapies in renal cell carcinoma: evidence to date. OncoTargets Ther 2020; 13: 12301-12316
• 9 Blum KA, Gupta S, Tickoo SK. et al. Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: biology, natural history and management. Nat Rev Urol 2020; 17 (12) 659-678
• 10 Iacovelli R, Ciccarese C, Bria E. et al. Patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma - re-defining the first-line of treatment: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Eur J Cancer 2020; 136: 195-203
• 11 Dizman N, Philip EJ, Pal SK. Genomic profiling in renal cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Nephrol 2020; 16 (08) 435-451
• 12 Williamson SR, Gill AJ, Argani P. et al. Report from the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consultation conference on molecular pathology of urogenital cancers: III: molecular pathology of kidney cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2020; 44 (07) e47-e65

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 05. Februar 2025

Angenommen: 11. März 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. April 2025