Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 35, Issue 12, pp 1899–1905 | Cite as

Marital status and gender affect stage, tumor grade, treatment type and cancer specific mortality in T1–2 N0 M0 renal cell carcinoma

  • Michele MarchioniEmail author
  • Tristan Martel
  • Marco Bandini
  • Raisa S. Pompe
  • Zhe Tian
  • Anil Kapoor
  • Luca Cindolo
  • Riccardo Autorino
  • Alberto Briganti
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
  • Luigi Schips
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the effect of marital status and gender on stage at diagnosis, tumor grade, treatment type and cancer specific mortality (CSM) in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Methods

Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry (2001–2013), we identified 57,700 patients with T1–2 N0 M0 RCC. Logistic regression and competing-risks regression models tested the effect of marital status and gender on stage, tumor grade, treatment type and cancer specific mortality (CSM).

Results

Of all patients, 8.8, 10.6 and 14.8% were, respectively, widowed, separated/divorced and never married. The three categories accounted for 3.9, 9.0 and 14.9% of males (35,641) and for 16.7, 13.1 and 14.7% of females (22,059). Widowed (OR 1.13, p = 0.04), separated/divorced (OR 1.16, p = 0.02) and never married status (OR 1.38, p < 0.001) predisposed to higher rate of no surgical treatment. Widowed (HR 1.32, p < 0.001) and separated/divorced (HR 1.32, p < 0.001) status predisposed to higher CSM. Male gender predisposed to higher T-stage (OR 1.12, p < 0.001), higher tumor grade (OR 1.35, p < 0.001), no surgical treatment (OR 1.23, p < 0.001) and higher CSM (1.13, p = 0.01). Interaction tests between gender and marital status failed to reach independent predictor status in all analyses.

Conclusions

Male patients are at higher risk of less favorable baseline characteristics. Additionally, male, widowed and separated/divorced patients exhibit worse cancer control outcomes after treatment for T1–2 N0 M0 RCC. These observations indicate the need of more focused attention to those patients prior to, as well as after treatment for localized RCC.

Keywords

Marital status Renal cell carcinoma Oncological outcomes Gender 

Notes

Authors contribution

Protocol/project development: Marchioni, Martel, Bandini and Karakiewicz. Data collection or management: Marchioni, Bandini, Pompe, Tian. Data analysis: Marchioni and Tian. Manuscript writing/editing: all authors. Karakiewicz is acknowledged for supervision.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participant and/or animals and informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R et al (2011) The effect of marital status on stage and survival of prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy: a population-based study. Cancer Causes Control CCC 22:1085–1095. doi: 10.1007/s10552-011-9784-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sammon JD, Morgan M, Djahangirian O et al (2012) Marital status: a gender-independent risk factor for poorer survival after radical cystectomy. BJU Int 110:1301–1309. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10993.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aizer AA, Chen M-H, McCarthy EP et al (2013) Marital status and survival in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:3869–3876. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.6489 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    He X-K, Lin Z-H, Qian Y et al (2016) Marital status and survival in patients with primary liver cancer. Oncotarget. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11066 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Du XL, Fang S, Coker AL et al (2006) Racial disparity and socioeconomic status in association with survival in older men with local/regional stage prostate carcinoma: findings from a large community-based cohort. Cancer 106:1276–1285. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21732 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scrucca L, Santucci A, Aversa F (2010) Regression modeling of competing risk using R: an in depth guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transplant 45:1388–1395. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2009.359 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun M, Shariat SF, Cheng C et al (2011) Prognostic factors and predictive models in renal cell carcinoma: a contemporary review. Eur Urol 60:644–661. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Chun FK-H et al (2007) Multi-institutional validation of a new renal cancer-specific survival nomogram. J Clin Oncol 25:1316–1322. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.1218 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McArdle CS, McMillan DC, Hole DJ (2003) Male gender adversely affects survival following surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 90:711–715. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4098 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Perrot M, Licker M, Bouchardy C et al (2000) Sex differences in presentation, management, and prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:21–26. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70213-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hellenthal NJ, Chamie K, Ramirez ML, deVere White RW (2009) Sociodemographic factors associated with nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 181:1013–1018. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trudeau V, Larcher A, Sun M et al (2016) Sociodemographic disparities in the nonoperative management of small renal masses. Clin Genitourin Cancer 14:177–182. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li Q, Gan L, Liang L et al (2015) The influence of marital status on stage at diagnosis and survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 6:7339–7347. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.3129 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rampersaud EN, Klatte T, Bass G et al (2014) The effect of gender and age on kidney cancer survival: younger age is an independent prognostic factor in women with renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol 32:30. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.10.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kates M, Korets R, Sadeghi N et al (2012) Predictors of locally advanced and metastatic disease in patients with small renal masses. BJU Int 109:1463–1467. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10553.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    May M, Aziz A, Zigeuner R et al (2013) Gender differences in clinicopathological features and survival in surgically treated patients with renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of the multicenter CORONA database. World J Urol 31:1073–1080. doi: 10.1007/s00345-013-1071-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Marchioni
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tristan Martel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marco Bandini
    • 1
    • 4
  • Raisa S. Pompe
    • 1
    • 5
  • Zhe Tian
    • 1
  • Anil Kapoor
    • 6
  • Luca Cindolo
    • 7
  • Riccardo Autorino
    • 8
  • Alberto Briganti
    • 4
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
    • 9
  • Luigi Schips
    • 7
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montreal Health CenterMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Urology, SS Annunziata Hospital“G.D’Annunzio” University of ChietiChietiItaly
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity of Montreal Health CentreMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Division of Oncology/Unit of UrologyURI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly
  5. 5.Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer CenterUniversity Hospital Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  6. 6.Division of UrologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  7. 7.Department of UrologyASL Abruzzo 2ChietiItaly
  8. 8.Division of Urology, Department of SurgeryVirginia Commonwealth University Health SystemRichmondUSA
  9. 9.Department of UrologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations