Evidence Hub

Renal cancer survival in clear cell renal cancer compared to other types of tumor histology: A population-based cohort study

Teesi Sepp, Antti Poyhonen, A. Uusküla, A. Kotsar, T. Veitonmäki, Teuvo L. J. Tammela, Aleksei Baburin, T. Murtola

PLoS ONE, 2025

14,413 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Introduction Renal cancer (RC) presents a challenge with increasing incidence and mortality. This study compares RC cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) based on histological type. Study design This population-based retrospective cohort study covers 1995–2017, utilizing cases from the Finnish Cancer Registry. Comorbidity, procedure and treatment information from 1995–2018 were obtained from the national health care registry, while death data originated from the national death certificate registry. RC cases were categorized by histology to analyze CSS and OS via Fine and Gray’s proportional sub-hazards model and Cox regression (adjusting for age, tumor extent, Charlson comorbidity index and treatment). Results The final cohort included 14,413 patients, predominantly ccRCC (75.5%), followed by papillary RCC (pRCC),5.8% and chromophobe RCC (chRCC) 2.1%. Univariate analysis showed better OS for non-ccRCC patients, with 5-year survival (5ySR) of 72.6% (95% CI 70.3–74.7%), compared to ccRCC (62.7%, 95%CI 61.8–63.5). Among non-ccRCC, the 5ySRs were as follows: pRCC 74.3% (95%CI 71.2–77.2), chRCC 82.2% (95% CI 77.2–86.1), sarcomatoid variants (sarcRC) 29.2% (95% CI 20.6–38.3), and collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) 23.5% (95%CI 7.3–44.9). Non-ccRCC showed improved CSS compared to ccRCC (sHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60–0.78). Favorable CSS for chRCC (sHR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18–0.43) and pRCC (sHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56–0.78), while sarcRC (sHR 1.83, 95% CI 1.36–2.46) and CDC (sHR 3.19,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 14,413 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free