Поиск
Закладки
Озвучить текст Озвучить книгу
Изменить режим чтения
Изменить размер шрифта
Оглавление
Для озвучивания и цитирования книги перейдите в режим постраничного просмотра.
Рак почки

Список литературы

  1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. The GLOBOCAN project: can- cer incidence and mortality worldwide in 2012. Доступно по адресу: http:// globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx
  2. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2014 году: заболеваемость и смертность. Под ред. Каприна А.Д., Старинского В.В., Петровой Г.В. М., 2016.
  3. European Network of Cancer Registries. Eurocim version 4.0. European inci- dence database V2.3, 730 entity dictionary (2001), Lyon, 2001.
  4. Lindblad P. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Scand. J. Surg. 2004; 93: 88.
  5. Ferlay J. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur. J. Cancer. 2013; 49: 1374.
  6. Levi F. et al. The changing pattern of kidney cancer incidence and mortality in Europe. BJU Int. 2008; 101: 949.
  7. Kovacs G. et al. The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours. J. Pathol. 1997; 183: 131.
  8. Sun M. et al. 1634 Management of localized kidney cancer: calculating cancer- specific mortality and compteing-risks of death tradeoffs between surgery and active surveillance. J. Urol. 2013; 189: e672.
  9. Masson-Lecomte A. et al. A prospective comparison of the pathologic and sur- gical outcomes obtained after elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma by open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urol. Oncol. 2013; 31: 924.
  10. Choi J.E. et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and lap- aroscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2015; 67: 891.
  11. Lipworth L. et al. The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2006; 176: 2353.
  12. Bergstrom A. et al. Obesity and renal cell cancer – a quantitative review. Br. J. Cancer. 2001; 85: 984.
  13. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). WHO IARC mono- graphs. 2004. 83 p.
  14. Weikert S. et al. Blood pressure and risk of renal cell carcinoma in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008; 167: 438.
  15. Clague J. et al. Family history and risk of renal cell carcinoma: results from a case-control study and systematic meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark- ers Prev. 2009; 18: 801.
  16. Pierorazio P.M. et al. Five-year analysis of a multi-institutional prospective clinical trial of delayed intervention and surveillance for small renal masses: the DISSRM registry. Eur. Urol. 2015; 68: 408.
  17. Daniel C.R. et al. Large prospective investigation of meat intake, related muta- gens, and risk of renal cell carcinoma. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2012; 95: 155.
  18. Bellocco R. et al. Alcohol drinking and risk of renal cell carcinoma: results of a meta-analysis. Ann. Oncol. 2012; 23: 2235.
  19. Song D.Y. et al. Alcohol intake and renal cell cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Br. J. Cancer. 2012; 106: 1881.
  20. Wood C. et al. An adjuvant autologous therapeutic vaccine (HSPPC-96; vitespen) versus observation alone for patients at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2008; 372: 145.
  21. Patard J.J. et al. Prognostic significance of the mode of detection in renal tu- mours. BJU Int. 2002; 90: 358.
  22. Kato M. et al. Natural history of small renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of growth rate, histological grade, cell proliferation and apoptosis. J. Urol. 2004; 172: 863.
  23. Tsui K.H. et al. Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumors. J. Urol. 2000; 163: 426.
  24. Sobin L.H., Gospodariwicz M., Wittekind C. (eds). TNM classification of ma- lignant tumors. UICC International Union Against Cancer. 7th edn. Wiley- Blackwell, 2009. 255 p.
  25. Wittekind B.J., Compton C.C., Sobin L.H. (eds). A Commentary on Uniform Use. UICC International Union against cancer. 4th edn. Wiley-Blackwell. 106 p.
  26. Ficarra V. et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery. Eur. Urol. 2009; 56: 786.
  27. Kutikov A. et al. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standard- ized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J. Urol. 2009; 182: 844.
  28. Simmons M.N. et al. Kidney tumor location measurement using the C-index method. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 1708.
  29. Eble J.N., Sauter G., Epstein J.I. et al. (eds). In: Pathology and genetics of tu- mours of the urinarysystem and male genital organs. World Health Organiza- tion Classification of Tumours. Lyon: IARC Press, 2004.
  30. Srigley J.R. et al. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Van- couver Classification of Renal Neoplasia. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2013; 37: 1469.
  31. Yang X.J. et al. A molecular classification of papillary renal cell carcinoma. Can- cer Res. 2005; 65: 5628.
  32. Linehan W.M. et al. Genetic basis of cancer of the kidney: disease-specific ap- proaches to therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004; 10: 6282S.
  33. Furge K.A. et al. Identification of deregulated oncogenic pathways in renal cell carcinoma: an integrated oncogenomic approach based on gene expression profiling. Oncogene. 2007; 26: 1346.
  34. Fuhrman S.A. et al. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1982; 6: 655.
  35. Capitanio U. et al. A critical assessment of the prognostic value of clear cell, papillary and chromophobe histological subtypes in renal cell carcinoma: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009; 103: 1496.
  36. Keegan K.A. et al. Histopathology of surgically treated renal cell carcinoma: survival differences by subtype and stage. J. Urol. 2012; 188: 391.
  37. Beck S.D. et al. Effect of papillary and chromophobe cell type on disease-free survival after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2004; 11: 71.
  38. Tsui K.H. et al. Prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of 643 patients using the revised 1997 TNM staging criteria. J. Urol. 2000; 163: 1090.
  39. Steffens S. et al. Incidence and long-term prognosis of papillary compared to clear cell renal cell carcinoma – a multicentre study. Eur. J. Cancer. 2012; 48: 2347.
  40. Pignot G. et al. Survival analysis of 130 patients with papillary renal cell carci- noma: prognostic utility of type 1 and type 2 subclassification. Urology. 2007; 69: 230.
  41. Gontero P. et al. Prognostic factors in a prospective series of papillary renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2008; 102: 697.
  42. Sukov W.R. et al. Clinical and pathological features associated with prognosis in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2012; 187: 54.
  43. Urge T. et al. Typical signs of oncocytic papillary renal cell carcinoma in every- day clinical praxis. World J. Urol. 2010; 28: 513.
  44. Paner G.P. et al. A novel tumor grading scheme for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: prognostic utility and comparison with Fuhrman nuclear grade. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2010; 34: 1233.
  45. Cheville J.C. et al. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: the impact of tumor grade on outcome. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2012; 36: 851.
  46. Vera-Badillo F.E. et al. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a review of an un- common entity. Int. J. Urol. 2012; 19: 894.
  47. Volpe A. et al. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC): oncological outcomes and prognostic factors in a large multicentre series. BJU Int. 2012; 110: 76.
  48. Roubaud G. et al. Combination of gemcitabine and doxorubicin in rapidly pro- gressive metastatic renal cell carcinoma and/or sarcomatoid renal cell carci- noma. Oncology. 2011; 80: 214.
  49. Abern M.R. et al. Characteristics and outcomes of tumors arising from the distal nephron. Urology. 2012; 80: 140.
  50. Husillos A. et al. Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma. Actas Urol. Esp. 2011; 35: 368.
  51. Hora M. et al. MiT translocation renal cell carcinomas: two subgroups of tu- mours with translocations involving 6p21 [t (6; 11)] and Xp11.2 [t (X;1 or X or 17)]. Springerplus. 2014; 3: 245.
  52. Jayson M. et al. Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1998; 51: 203.
  53. Lee C.T. et al. Mode of presentation of renal cell carcinoma provides prognostic information. Urol. Oncol. 2002; 7: 135.
  54. Patard J.J. et al. Correlation between symptom graduation, tumor characteris- tics and survival in renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2003; 44: 226.
  55. Kim H.L. et al. Paraneoplastic signs and symptoms of renal cell carcinoma: implications for prognosis. J. Urol. 2003; 170: 1742.
  56. Motzer R.J. et al. Interferon-alfa as a comparative treatment for clinical trials of new therapies against advanced renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2002; 20: 289.
  57. Sufrin G. et al. Paraneoplastic and serologic syndromes of renal adenocarci- noma. Semin Urol. 1989; 7: 158.
  58. Israel G.M. et al. How I do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology. 2005; 236: 441.
  59. Fan L. et al. Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in solid renal parenchymal lesions with maximum diameters of 5 cm. J. Ultrasound Med. 2008; 27: 875.
  60. Correas J.M. et al. Guidelines for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – up- date 2008. J. Radiol. 2009; 90: 123.
  61. Mitterberger M. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for diagnosis of prostate cancer and kidney lesions. Eur. J. Radiol. 2007; 64: 231.
  62. Israel G.M. et al. Pitfalls in renal mass evaluation and how to avoid them. Ra- diographics. 2008; 28: 1325.
  63. Rosenkrantz A.B. et al. MRI features of renal oncocytoma and hromophobe renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010; 195: W421.
  64. Hindman N. et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques? Radiol- ogy. 2012; 265: 468.
  65. Pedrosa I. et al. MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with findings at sur- gery and pathologic analysis. Radiographics. 2008; 28: 985.
  66. Gong I.H. et al. Relationship among total kidney volume, renal function and age. J. Urol. 2012; 187: 344.
  67. Ferda J. et al. Assessment of the kidney tumor vascular supply by two-phase MDCT-angiography. Eur. J. Radiol. 2007; 62: 295.
  68. Shao P. et al. Precise segmental renal artery clamping under the guidance of du- al-source computed tomography angiography during laparoscopic partial ne- phrectomy. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 1001.
  69. Adey G.S. et al. Lower limits of detection using magnetic resonance imaging for solid components in cystic renal neoplasms. Urology. 2008; 71: 47.
  70. Janus C.L. et al. Comparison of MRI and CT for study of renal and perirenal masses. Crit. Rev. Diagn. Imaging. 1991; 32: 69.
  71. Krestin G.P. et al. The importance of magnetic resonance tomography in the diagnosis and staging of renal cell carcinoma. Radiologe. 1992; 32: 121.
  72. Mueller-Lisse U.G. et al. Imaging of advanced renal cell carcinoma. World J. Urol. 2010; 28: 253.
  73. Kabala J.E. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of renal cell carci- noma. Br. J. Radiol. 1991; 64: 683.
  74. Putra L.G. et al. Improved assessment of renal lesions in pregnancy with mag- netic resonance imaging. Urology. 2009; 74: 535.
  75. Giannarini G. et al. Potential and limitations of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer including pelvic lymph node staging: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 326.
  76. Park J.W. et al. Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission to- mography/computed tomography for the postoperative surveillance of ad- vanced renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2009; 103: 615.
  77. Bechtold R.E. et al. Imaging approach to staging of renal cell carcinoma. Urol. Clin. North Am. 1997; 24: 507.
  78. Miles K.A. et al. CT staging of renal carcinoma: a prospective comparison of three dynamic computed tomography techniques. Eur. J. Radiol. 1991; 13: 37.
  79. Lim D.J. et al. Computerized tomography in the preoperative staging for pulmo- nary metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 1993; 150: 1112.
  80. Marshall M.E. et al. Low incidence of asymptomatic brain metastases in pa- tients with renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1990; 36: 300.
  81. Koga S. et al. The diagnostic value of bone scan in patients with renal cell carci- noma. J. Urol. 2001; 166: 2126.
  82. Henriksson C. et al. Skeletal metastases in 102 patients evaluated before surgery for renal cell carcinoma. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 1992; 26: 363.
  83. Seaman E. et al. Association of radionuclide bone scan and serum alkaline phosphatase in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1996; 48: 692.
  84. Warren K.S. et al. The Bosniak classification of renal cystic masses. BJU Int. 2005; 95: 939.
  85. Bosniak M.A. The use of the Bosniak classification system for renal cysts and cystic tumors. J. Urol. 1997; 157: 1852.
  86. Shannon B.A. et al. The value of preoperative needle core biopsy for diagnosing benign lesions among small, incidentally detected renal masses. J. Urol. 2008; 180: 1257.
  87. Maturen K.E. et al. Renal mass core biopsy: accuracy and impact on clinical management. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007; 188: 563.
  88. Volpe A. et al. Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience. J. Urol. 2008; 180: 2333.
  89. Veltri A. et al. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of imaging-guided nee- dle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150 cases. Eur. Radiol. 2011; 21: 393.
  90. Leveridge M.J. et al. Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondi- agnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur. Urol. 2011; 60: 578.
  91. Abel E.J. et al. Percutaneous biopsy of primary tumor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma to predict high risk pathological features: comparison with nephrec- tomy assessment. J. Urol. 2010; 184: 1877.
  92. Breda A. et al. Comparison of accuracy of 14-, 18and 20-G needles in ex-vivo renal mass biopsy: a prospective, blinded study. BJU Int. 2010; 105: 940.
  93. Marconi L. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69 (4): 660–673.
  94. Lang H. et al. Multicenter determination of optimal interobserver agree- ment using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma: Assessment of 241 patients with > 15-year follow-up. Cancer. 2005; 103: 625.
  95. Rioux-Leclercq N. et al. Prognostic ability of simplified nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2007; 109: 868.
  96. Sun M. et al. A proposal for reclassification of the Fuhrman grading system in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2009; 56: 775.
  97. Cheville J.C. et al. Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2003; 27: 612.
  98. Patard J.J. et al. Prognostic value of histologic subtypes in renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter experience. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23: 2763.
  99. Leibovich B.C. et al. Histological subtype is an independent predictor of out- come for patients with renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 1309.
  100. Wahlgren T. et al. Treatment and overall survival in renal cell carcinoma: a Swedish population based study (2000-2008). Br. J. Cancer. 2013; 108: 1541.
  101. Haas N.B. et al. Initial results from ASSURE (E2805): Adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib for unfavorable renal carcinoma, an ECOG-ACRIN-led, NCTN phase III trial. ASCO Meeting Abstracts. 33: 403.
  102. Bensalah K. et al. Prognostic value of thrombocytosis in renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2006; 175: 859.
  103. Kim H.L. et al. Cachexia-like symptoms predict a worse prognosis in localized t1 renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 1810.
  104. Patard J.J. et al. Multi-institutional validation of a symptom based classification for renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2004; 172: 858.
  105. A phase 3, randomized, open-label study of nivolumab combined with ipili- mumab versus sunitinib monotherapy in subjects with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. 2015 p. NCT02231749.
  106. Sim S.H. et al. Prognostic utility of pre-operative circulating osteopontin, car- bonic anhydrase IX and CRP in renal cell carcinoma. Br. J. Cancer. 2012; 107: 1131.
  107. Sabatino M. et al. Serum vascular endothelial growth factor and fibronectin predict clinical response to high-dose interleukin-2 therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 27: 2645.
  108. Li G. et al. Serum carbonic anhydrase 9 level is associated with postoperative recurrence of conventional renal cell cancer. J. Urol. 2008; 180: 510.
  109. Choueiri T.K. et al. A phase I study of cabozantinib (XL184) in patients with renal cell cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2014; 25: 1603.
  110. Motzer R.J. et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carci- noma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 373: 1803.
  111. Zhao H. et al. Gene expression profiling predicts survival in conventional renal cell carcinoma. PLoS Med. 2006; 3: e13.
  112. Sorbellini M. et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recur- rence for patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 48.
  113. Zisman A. et al. Improved prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an integrated staging system. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001; 19: 1649.
  114. Frank I. et al. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J. Urol. 2002; 168: 2395.
  115. Leibovich B.C. et al. Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer. 2003; 97: 1663.
  116. Patard J.J. et al. Use of the University of California Los Angeles integrated stag- ing system to predict survival in renal cell carcinoma: an international multi- center study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004; 22: 3316.
  117. Karakiewicz P.I. et al. Multi-institutional validation of a new renal cancer-spe- cific survival nomogram. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 1316.
  118. Zigeuner R. et al. External validation of the Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score for clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in a single Euro- pean centre applying routine pathology. Eur. Urol. 2010; 57: 102.
  119. Isbarn H. et al. Predicting cancer-control outcomes in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2009; 19: 247.
  120. Raj G.V. et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting 12-year probability of meta- static renal cancer. J. Urol. 2008; 179: 2146.
  121. Karakiewicz P.I. et al. A preoperative prognostic model for patients treated with nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2009; 55: 287.
  122. Butler B.P. et al. Management of small unilateral renal cell carcinomas: radical versus nephronsparing surgery. Urology. 1995; 45: 34.
  123. Gratzke C. et al. Quality of life and perioperative outcomes after retroperito- neoscopic radical nephrectomy (RN), open RN and nephron-sparing surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2009; 104: 470.
  124. D’Armiento M. et al. Elective conservative surgery for renal carcinoma versus radical nephrectomy: a prospective study. Br. J. Urol. 1997; 79: 15.
  125. Lee J.H., Min G.E. et al. Comparison of the surgical outcome and renal function between radical and nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinomas. Korean J. Urol. 2007: 671.
  126. Van Poppel H. et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radi- cal nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2011; 59: 543.
  127. Huang W.C. et al. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors – is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes? J. Urol. 2009; 181: 55.
  128. Zini L. et al. Radical versus partial nephrectomy: effect on overall and noncan- cer mortality. Cancer. 2009; 115: 1465.
  129. Thompson R.H. et al. Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be as- sociated with decreased overall survival compared with partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 2008; 179: 468.
  130. Patard J.J. et al. Radical nephrectomy is not superior to nephron sparing surgery in PT1B-PT2N0M0 renal tumours: A matched comparison analysis in 546 cas- es. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2008; 2008: 194.
  131. Jang H.A. et al. Oncologic and functional outcomes after partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in T1b renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, matched case-control study in Korean patients. J. Urol. 2013; 189: e675.
  132. Thompson R.H. et al. Contemporary use of partial nephrectomy at a tertiary care center in the United States. J. Urol. 2009; 181: 993.
  133. Dash A. et al. Comparison of outcomes in elective partial vs radical nephrec- tomy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma of 4-7 cm. BJU Int. 2006; 97: 939.
  134. Weight C.J. et al. Nephrectomy induced chronic renal insufficiency is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death and death from any cause in pa- tients with localized cT1b renal masses. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 1317.
  135. Crépel M. et al. Nephron-sparing surgery is equally effective to radical ne- phrectomy for T1BN0M0 renal cell carcinoma: a population-based assessment. Urology. 2010; 75: 271.
  136. Patard J.J. et al. Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based on an international multicenter experience. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 2181.
  137. Antonelli A. et al. Elective partial nephrectomy is equivalent to radical nephrec- tomy in patients with clinical T1 renal cell carcinoma: results of a retrospective, comparative, multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2012; 109: 1013.
  138. Iizuka J. et al. Similar functional outcomes after partial nephrectomy for clinical T1b and T1a renal cell carcinoma. Int. Urol. 2012; 19: 980.
  139. Badalato G.M. et al. Survival after partial and radical nephrectomy for the treat- ment of stage T1bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the USA: a propensity scoring approach. BJU Int. 2012; 109: 1457.
  140. Simmons M.N. et al. Laparoscopic radical versus partial nephrectomy for tu- mors > 4 cm: intermediate-term oncologic and functional outcomes. Urology. 2009; 73: 1077.
  141. Takaki H. et al. Midterm results of radiofrequency ablation versus nephrectomy for T1a renal cell carcinoma. Jpn J. Radiol. 2010; 28: 460.
  142. Blom J.H. et al. Radical nephrectomy with and without lymph-node dissection: final results of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) randomized phase 3 trial 30881. Eur. Urol. 2009; 55: 28.
  143. Capitanio U. et al. Lymph node dissection in renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2011; 60: 1212.
  144. Herrlinger A. et al. What are the benefits of extended dissection of the regional renal lymph nodes in the therapy of renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 1991; 146: 1224.
  145. Peters P.C. et al. The role of lymphadenectomy in the management of renal cell carcinoma. Urol. Clin. North Am. 1980; 7: 705.
  146. Yamashita Y. A.A., Sakamoto K. The therapeutic value of lymph node dissection for renal cell carcinoma. Nishinihon J. Urol. 1989: 777.
  147. Sullivan L.D. et al. Surgical management of renal cell carcinoma at the Vancou- ver General Hospital: 20-year review. Can. J. Surg. 1979; 22: 427.
  148. Siminovitch J.P. et al. Lymphadenectomy in renal adenocarcinoma. J. Urol. 1982; 127: 1090.
  149. Kim S. et al. The relationship of lymph node dissection with recurrence and sur- vival for patients treated with nephrectomy for high-risk renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2012; 187: e233.
  150. May M. et al. Pre-operative renal arterial embolisation does not provide sur- vival benefit in patients with radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Br. J. Radiol. 2009; 82: 724.
  151. Subramanian V.S. et al. Utility of preoperative renal artery embolization for man- agement of renal tumors with inferior vena caval thrombi. Urology. 2009; 74: 154.
  152. Maxwell N.J. et al. Renal artery embolisation in the palliative treatment of renal carcinoma. Br. J. Radiol. 2007; 80: 96.
  153. Hallscheidt P. et al. Preoperative and palliative embolization of renal cell carci- nomas: follow-up of 49 patients. Rofo. 2006; 178: 391.
  154. Lamb G.W. et al. Management of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for nephrectomy – natural history, complications, and outcome. Urology. 2004; 64: 909.
  155. Hemal A.K. et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a longterm prospective comparison. J. Urol. 2007; 177: 862.
  156. Brewer K. et al. Perioperative and renal function outcomes of minimally inva- sive partial nephrectomy for T1b and T2a kidney tumors. J. Endourol. 2012; 26: 244.
  157. Sprenkle P.C. et al. Comparison of open and minimally invasive partial ne- phrectomy for renal tumors 4-7 centimeters. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 593.
  158. Peng B. et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrec- tomy for radical treatment of renal cell carcinoma: A comparison of clinical outcomes. Acad. J. of Second Mil. Med. Univ. 2006: 1167.
  159. Ebbing J. et al. Evaluation of perioperative complications in open and laparo- scopic surgery for renal cell cancer with tumor thrombus involvement using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015; 41: 941.
  160. Laird A. et al. Matched pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open radical ne- phrectomy for the treatment of T3 renal cell carcinoma. World J. Urol. 2015; 33: 25.
  161. Steinberg A.P. et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large (greater than 7 cm, T2) renal tumors. J. Urol. 2004; 172: 2172.
  162. Desai M.M. et al. Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 38.
  163. Nambirajan T. et al. Prospective, randomized controlled study: transperitoneal laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy. Urology. 2004; 64: 919.
  164. Soga N. et al. Comparison of radical nephrectomy techniques in one center: minimal incision portless endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery. Int. J. Urol. 2008; 15: 1018.
  165. Park Y. et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma: comparison with conventional laparoscopic surgery. J. En- dourol. 2009; 23: A19.
  166. Gill I.S. et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrecto- mies for single renal tumors. J. Urol. 2007; 178: 41.
  167. Lane B.R. et al. 7-year oncological outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 473.
  168. Gong E.M. et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T1a renal tumors. J. Endourol. 2008; 22: 953.
  169. Marszalek M. et al. Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched- pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur. Urol. 2009; 55: 1171.
  170. Muramaki M. et al. Prognostic factors influencing postoperative development of chronic kidney disease in patients with small renal tumors who underwent partial nephrectomy. Curr. Urol. 2013; 6: 129.
  171. Rais-Bahrami S. et al. Off-clamp versus complete hilar control laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison by clinical stage. BJU Int. 2012; 109: 1376.
  172. Bazzi W.M. et al. Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site and multiport laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy: a prospective, nonrandomized study. Urology. 2012; 80: 1039.
  173. Lane B.R. et al. Active treatment of localized renal tumors may not impact over- all survival in patients aged 75 years or older. Cancer. 2010; 116: 3119.
  174. Hollingsworth J.M. et al. Five-year survival after surgical treatment for kidney cancer: a populationbased competing risk analysis. Cancer. 2007; 109: 1763.
  175. Volpe A. et al. The natural history of incidentally detected small renal masses. Cancer. 2004; 100: 738.
  176. Jewett M.A. et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur. Urol. 2011; 60: 39.
  177. Smaldone M.C. et al. Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Cancer. 2012; 118: 997.
  178. Sisul D.M. et al. RENAL nephrometry score is associated with complications after renal cryoablation: a multicenter analysis. Urology. 2013; 81: 775.
  179. Kim E.H. et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic and percutaneous cryoablation for renal masses. J. Urol. 2013; 189: e492.
  180. Goyal J. et al. Single-center comparative oncologic outcomes of surgical and per- cutaneous cryoablation for treatment of renal tumors. J. Endourol. 2012; 26: 1413.
  181. Atwell T.D. et al. Percutaneous ablation of renal masses measuring 3.0 cm and smaller: comparative local control and complications after radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013; 200: 461.
  182. Samarasekera D. et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation versus percutane- ous cryoablation: long-term outcomes following ablation for renal cell carci- noma. J. Urol. 2013; 189: e737.
  183. O’Malley R.L. et al. A matched-cohort comparison of laparoscopic cryoablation and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for treating renal masses. BJU Int. 2007; 99: 395.
  184. Ko Y.H. et al. A matched-cohort comparison of laparoscopic renal cryoablation using ultra-thin cryoprobes with open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. Treat. 2008; 40: 184.
  185. Desai M.M. et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic cryo- ablation for the small renal tumor. Urology. 2005; 66: 23.
  186. Moinzadeh A. et al. Prognostic significance of tumor thrombus level in patients with renal cell carcinoma and venous tumor thrombus extension. Is all T3b the same? J. Urol. 2004; 171: 598.
  187. Faust W. et al. Minimal access versus median sternotomy for cardiopulmonary bypass in the management of renal cell carcinoma with vena caval and atrial involvement. J. Urol. 2013; 189 (Suppl.): e255.
  188. Chan A.A. et al. Impact of preoperative renal artery embolization on surgical outcomes and overall survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma and inferior vena cava thrombus. J. Urol. 2011: e707.
  189. Orihashi K. et al. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest for resection of renal tumor in the inferior vena cava: beneficial or deleterious? Circ. J. 2008; 72: 1175.
  190. Galligioni E. et al. Adjuvant immunotherapy treatment of renal carcinoma pa- tients with autologous tumor cells and bacillus Calmette-Guerin: five-year re- sults of a prospective randomized study. Cancer. 1996; 77: 2560.
  191. Figlin R.A. et al. Multicenter, randomized, phase III trial of CD8(+) tumor-in- filtrating lymphocytes in combination with recombinant interleukin-2 in meta- static renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999; 17: 2521.
  192. Clark J.I. et al. Adjuvant high-dose bolus interleukin-2 for patients with high- risk renal cell carcinoma: a cytokine working group randomized trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003; 21: 3133.
  193. Atzpodien J. et al. Adjuvant treatment with interleukin-2and interferon-al- pha2a-based chemoimmunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma post tumour ne- phrectomy: results of a prospectively randomised trial of the German Coopera- tive Renal Carcinoma Chemoimmunotherapy Group (DGCIN). Br. J. Cancer. 2005; 92: 843.
  194. Jocham D. et al. Adjuvant autologous renal tumour cell vaccine and risk of tu- mour progression in patients with renal-cell carcinoma after radical nephrec- tomy: phase III, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004; 363: 594.
  195. Flanigan R.C. et al. Cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer: a combined analysis. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 1071.
  196. Alt A.L. et al. Survival after complete surgical resection of multiple metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2011; 117: 2873.
  197. Brinkmann O.A., Semik M., Gosherger G. et al. The role of residual tumor resection in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and partial remission following immunotherapy. Eur. Urol. 2007: 641.
  198. Kwak C. et al. Metastasectomy without systemic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: comparison with conservative treatment. Urol. Int. 2007; 79: 145.
  199. Lee S.E. et al. Metastatectomy prior to immunochemotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Urol. Int. 2006; 76: 256.
  200. Petralia G. et al. Complete metastasectomy is an independent predictor of can- cer-specific survival in patients with clinically metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2010; 2010: 162.
  201. Russo P. et al. Cytoreductive nephrectomy and nephrectomy/complete metas- tasectomy for metastatic renal cancer. ScientificWorld Journal. 2007; 7: 768.
  202. Staehler M. et al. Metastasectomy significantly prolongs survival in patients with metastatic renal cancer. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2009; 2009: 181.
  203. Eggener S.E. et al. Risk score and metastasectomy independently impact prog- nosis of patients with recurrent renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2008; 180: 873.
  204. Fuchs B. et al. Solitary bony metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: significance of surgical treatment. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2005: 187.
  205. Staehler M.D. et al. Liver resection for metastatic disease prolongs survival in renal cell carcinoma: 12-year results from a retrospective comparative analy- sis. World J. Urol. 2010; 28: 543.
  206. Amiraliev A. et al. Treatment strategy in patients with pulmonary metastases of renal cell cancer. Int. Cardio Thor. Surgery. 2012: S20.
  207. Zerbi A. et al. Pancreatic metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: which patients benefit from surgical resection? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008; 15: 1161.
  208. Fokas E. et al. Radiotherapy for brain metastases from renal cell cancer: should whole-brain radiotherapy be added to stereotactic radiosurgery?: analysis of 88 patients. Strahlenther Onkol. 2010; 186: 210.
  209. Ikushima H. et al. Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2000; 48: 1389.
  210. Gore M.E. et al. Interferon alfa-2a versus combination therapy with interferon alfa-2a, interleukin-2, and fluorouracil in patients with untreated metastatic re- nal cell carcinoma (MRC RE04/EORTC GU 30012): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2010; 375: 641.
  211. Stadler W.M. et al. Prognostic factors for survival with gemcitabine plus 5-fluo- rouracil based regimens for metastatic renal cancer. J. Urol. 2003; 170: 1141.
  212. Interferon-alpha and survival in metastatic renal carcinoma: early results of a randomised controlled trial. Medical Research Council Renal Cancer Col- laborators. Lancet. 1999; 353: 14.
  213. Coppin C. et al. Immunotherapy for advanced renal cell cancer. Cochrane Da- tabase Syst. Rev. 2005: CD001425.
  214. Negrier S. et al. Medroxyprogesterone, interferon alfa-2a, interleukin 2, or com- bination of both cytokines in patients with metastatic renal carcinoma of inter- mediate prognosis: results of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2007; 110: 2468.
  215. Escudier B. et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of meta- static renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial. Lancet. 2007; 370: 2103.
  216. Motzer R.J. et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carci- noma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007; 356: 115.
  217. Hudes G. et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007; 356: 2271.
  218. Rosenberg S.A. et al. Prospective randomized trial of high-dose interleukin-2 alone or in conjunction with lymphokine-activated killer cells for the treatment of patients with advanced cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993; 85: 622.
  219. Fyfe G. et al. Results of treatment of 255 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received high-dose recombinant interleukin-2 therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 1995; 13: 688.
  220. McDermott D.F. et al. Randomized phase III trial of high-dose interleukin-2 versus subcutaneous interleukin-2 and interferon in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23: 133.
  221. Ribas A. Tumor immunotherapy directed at PD-1. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366: 2517.
  222. Motzer R.J. et al. Nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a ran- domized phase II trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 33: 1430.
  223. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate 214). 2015.
  224. Study of nivolumab (BMS-936558) vs. everolimus in pre-treated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate 025). 2015.
  225. Patel P.H. et al. Targeting von Hippel-Lindau pathway in renal cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006; 12: 7215.
  226. Yang J.C. et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003; 349: 427.
  227. Patard J.J. et al. Understanding the importance of smart drugs in renal cell car- cinoma. Eur. Urol. 2006; 49: 633.
  228. Heng D.Y. et al. Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastat- ic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents: results from a large, multicenter study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 27: 5794.
  229. Escudier B. et al. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007; 356: 125.
  230. Bellmunt J. et al. The medical treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer in the el- derly: position paper of a SIOG Taskforce. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2009; 69: 64.
  231. Motzer R.J. et al. Activity of SU11248, a multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006; 24: 16.
  232. Figlin R.A. et al. Overall survival with sunitinib versus interferon alfa as first- line treatment in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. ASCO Annual Meeting Pro- ceedings 2008. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008.
  233. Motzer R.J. et al. Randomized phase II trial of sunitinib on an intermittent versus continuous dosing schedule as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012; 30: 1371.
  234. Sternberg C.N. et al. Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell car- cinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010; 28: 1061.
  235. Motzer R.J. et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013; 369: 722.
  236. Escudier B.J. et al. Patient preference between pazopanib (Paz) and sunitinib (Sun): Results of a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) – PISCES study, NCT 01064310. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012; 30.
  237. Rini B.I. et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2011; 378: 1931.
  238. Dror Michaelson M. et al. Phase III AXIS trial of axitinib versus sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Updated results among cytokine-treated patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012; 30 (suppl.): 4546.
  239. Motzer R.J. et al. Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14: 552.
  240. Choueiri T.K. et al. Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell car- cinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 373: 1814.
  241. Escudier B.J., Négrier S., Bajetta E. et al. Phase III trial of bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AVOREN): final analysis of overall survival. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010; 28: 2144.
  242. Rini B.I. et al. Phase III trial of bevacizumab plus interferon alfa versus inter- feron alfa monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final results of CALGB 90206. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010; 28: 2137.
  243. Rini B.I. et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa compared with interferon alfa monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: CALGB 90206. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008; 26: 5422.
  244. Hutson T.E. et al. Randomized phase III trial of temsirolimus versus sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell car- cinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014; 32: 760.
  245. Motzer R.J. et al. Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Lancet. 2008; 372: 449.
  246. Motzer R.J. et al. Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final results and analysis of prognostic factors. Cancer. 2010; 116: 4256.
  247. Calvo E. et al. Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Subgroup analysis of patients with 1 or 2 previous vascular endothelial growth factor receptor- tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies enrolled in the phase III RECORD-1 study. Eur. J. Cancer. 2012; 48: 333.
  248. Bracarda S. et al. Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients intolerant to previous VEGFr-TKI therapy: a RECORD-1 subgroup analysis. Br. J. Cancer. 2012; 106: 1475.
  249. Motzer R.J. et al. Record-3: Phase II randomized trial comparing sequential first-line everolimus (EVE) and second-line sunitinib (SUN) versus first-line SUN and second-line EVE in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2013; 31.
  250. Bukowski R.M. et al. Randomized phase II study of erlotinib combined with bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone in metastatic renal cell cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25: 4536.
  251. Negrier S. et al. Temsirolimus and bevacizumab, or sunitinib, or interferon alfa and bevacizumab for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TORAVA): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12: 673.
  252. McDermott D.F. et al. The BEST trial (E2804): A randomized phase II study of VEGF, RAF kinase, and mTOR combination targeted therapy (CTT) with bevacizumab (bev), sorafenib (sor), and temsirolimus (tem) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2013; 31 (suppl. 6): 345.
  253. Rini B.I. et al. Randomized phase III trial of temsirolimus and bevacizumab versus interferon alfa and bevacizumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: IN- TORACT trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014. 32: 752.
  254. Ravaud A. et al. Randomized phase II study of first-line everolimus (EVE) + bevacizumab (BEV) versus interferon alfa-2A (IFN) + BEV in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC): RECORD-2., in The Annual Meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology 2012, ESMO: (Vienna, Austria).
  255. Gore M.E. et al. Safety and efficacy of sunitinib for metastatic renal-cell carci- noma: an expanded access trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10: 757.
  256. Sánchez P., Calvo E., Durán I. Non-clear cell advanced kidney cancer: is there a gold standard? Anticancer Drugs. 2011; 22: S9.
  257. Koh Y. et al. Phase II trial of everolimus for the treatment of nonclear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Ann. Oncol. 2013; 24: 1026.
  258. Tannir N.M. et al. A phase 2 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced non- clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 1013.
  259. Ravaud A. et al. First-line sunitinib in type I and II papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC): SUPAP, a phase II study of the French Genito-Urinary Group (GETUG) and the Group of Early Phase trials (GEP). J. Clin Oncol. 2009; 15S: 5146.
  260. Escudier B.J. et al. Open-label phase II trial of first-line everolimus monother- apy in patients with papillary metastatic renal cell carcinoma: RAPTOR final analysis. Eur. J. Cancer. 2013; 49 (Suppl. 2): 49.
  261. Tannir N.M. et al. Everolimus versus sunitinib prospective evaluation in meta- static non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (The ESPN Trial): A multicenter ran- domized phase 2 trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014; 32.
  262. Armstrong A.J. et al. Final clinical results of a randomized phase II international trial of everolimus vs. sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN). J. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 33.
  263. Motzer R.J. et al. Phase II randomized trial comparing sequential first-line everolimus and second line sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib and second- line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014; 32: 2765.
  264. Pettus J.A. et al. Effect of baseline glomerular filtration rate on survival in pa- tients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2008; 83: 1101.
  265. Snow D.C. et al. Rapid communication: chronic renal insufficiency after laparo- scopic partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy for pathologic t1a lesions. J. Endourol. 2008; 22: 337.
  266. Jeldres C. et al. Partial versus radical nephrectomy in patients with adverse clinical or pathologic characteristics. Urology. 2009; 73: 1300.
  267. Bruno J.J. 2nd et al. Renal cell carcinoma local recurrences: impact of surgical treatment and concomitant metastasis on survival. BJU Int. 2006; 97: 933.
  268. Sandhu S.S. et al. Surgical excision of isolated renal-bed recurrence after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2005; 95: 522.
  269. Bani-Hani A.H. et al. Associations with contralateral recurrence following ne- phrectomy for renal cell carcinoma using a cohort of 2,352 patients. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 391.
  270. Lam J.S. et al. Renal cell carcinoma 2005: new frontiers in staging, prognostication and targeted molecular therapy. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 1853.
  271. Scoll B.J. et al. Age, tumor size and relative survival of patients with localized renal cell carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology and end results analysis. J. Urol. 2009; 181: 506.
  272. Cindolo L. et al. Comparison of predictive accuracy of four prognostic models for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy: a multicenter European study. Cancer. 2005; 104: 1362.
  273. Skolarikos A. et al. A review on follow-up strategies for renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. Eur. Urol. 2007; 51: 1490.
  274. Chin A.I. et al. Surveillance strategies for renal cell carcinoma patients follow- ing nephrectomy. Rev. Urol. 2006; 8: 1.

Для продолжения работы требуется Registration
На предыдущую страницу

Предыдущая страница

Следующая страница

Список литературы
На предыдущую главу Предыдущая глава
оглавление
Следующая глава

Table of contents

Данный блок поддерживает скрол*