Table 1.
Patient ID | Age | Sex | Site | Tumor number (size: cm) | Invasive | Follow-up (month) | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | 55 | F | Renal | 1 (5.0 × 5.0 × 2.0) | Yes | 82 | Alive |
02 | 41 | F | Renal | 1 (3.0 × 2.0 × 2.0) | Yes | 81 | Alive |
03 | 52 | F | Renal | 1 (1.5 × 1.5 × 1.0) | No | Unavailable | Alive |
04 | 53 | F | Renal | 1 (5.0 × 5.0 × 4.0) | No | 78 | Alive |
05 | 44 | F | Renal | 1 (4.0 × 3.0 × 3.0) | Yes | 77 | Alive |
06 | 49 | F | Renal | 1 (3.0 × 2.0 × 2.0) | Yes | 65 | Alive |
07 | 41 | F | Renal | 1 (1.5 × 1.0 × 1.0) | No | 64 | Alive |
08 | 58 | F | Renal | 1 (4.0 × 4.0 × 1.0) | No | 64 | Alive |
09 | 60 | M | Renal | 2 (from 2.5 to 1.5) | No | 52 | Deceased |
10 | 40 | F | Renal | 1 (4.5 × 3.0 × 1.0) | No | 73 | Alive |
11 | 55 | F | Renal | 1 (5.0 × .4.0 × 4.0) | No | 73 | Alive |
12 | 39 | F | Renal | 3 (from 0.8 to 3) | Yes | 72 | Alive |
13 | 29 | F | Renal | 1 (15.0 × 8.0 × 6.0) | Yes | Unavailable | Unknown |
14 | 64 | F | Renal | 1 (5.0 × 5.0 × 5.0) | No | Unavailable | Unknown |
15 | 59 | F | Renal | 1 (2.0 × 1.5 × 1.0) | No | 68 | Alive |
16 | 73 | M | Renal | 1 (2.5 × 2.5 × 2.0) | No | 64 | Alive |
17 | 72 | F | Renal | 1 (3.0 × 3.0 × 2.0) | No | 64 | Alive |
18 | 51 | F | Renal | 1 (3.0 × 2.0 × 1.0) | No | 63 | Alive |
19 | 43 | M | Renal | 1 (5.0 × 5.0 × 4.0) | Yes | 61 | Alive |
20 | 73 | F | Renal | 1 (10.0 × 10.0 × 5.0) | Yes | 60 | Alive |
21 | 73 | F | Liver | 1 (8.0 × 7.0 × 5.0) | Yes | 51 | Alive |
22 | 44 | F | Renal | 1 (10.0 × 4.0 × 4.0) | Yes | 42 | Alive |
23 | 62 | F | Renal | 1 (6.0 × 4.0 × 3.0) | Yes | 42 | Alive |
24 | 35 | F | Renal | 1 (8.0 × 6.0 × 2.0) | Yes | 42 | Alive |
25 | 29 | M | Renal | 1 (5.0 × 4.0 × 2.0) | Yes | 42 | Alive |
26 | 44 | F | Retroperitonium | 1 (5.0 × 5.0 × 4.0) | No | 42 | Alive |
Note: The averaged tumor sizes with and without invasive characteristics were 7.42 × 4.75 × 3.17 and 3.83 × 3.21 × 2.43, respectively.