Literature DB >> 15964127

Histological subtyping and nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma and their implications for survival: a retrospective nation-wide study of 629 patients.

Tomas Gudbjartsson1, Sverrir Hardarson, Vigdis Petursdottir, Asgeir Thoroddsen, Jonas Magnusson, Gudmundur V Einarsson.   

Abstract

OBJECTS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of the current WHO histological subtyping and Fuhrman nuclear grading on the survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective population-based study was carried out on all patients with a histopathologically confirmed diagnosis of RCC in Iceland between 1971 and 2000. Fuhrman grade, TNM stage, and survival were evaluated and multivariate analysis applied in order to determine prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Out of 629 patients (387 males, 242 females, mean age 64 years), 558 (88.7%) had clear cell, 53 (8.4%) papillary, and 13 (2.1%) chromophobe RCC. Patient demographics were comparable for the two major subtypes, but chromophobe RCCs were larger in size and were diagnosed at a younger age. Clear cell RCCs were more often of higher grades (G3+G4, 48.4%) and at advanced TNM stages (III+IV, 59.3%) than papillary RCCs (22.6% and 34% respectively, p<0.001). Linear regression analysis showed a strong correlation between grade, tumor size, and stage (p<0.001). Chromophobe RCCs had a better survival in univariate analysis than both papillary and clear cell RCCs (84.6% vs. 66.5% and 54.9% 5-year disease specific survival, p<0.001). However, in the multivariate analysis, only the patient's age, calendar year of diagnosis, TNM stage, and nuclear grade were independent prognostic factors of survival.
CONCLUSION: In this complete nation-wide series nuclear grading is important in predicting survival of patients with RCC. It is strongly related to both tumor size and stage, with stage being by far the strongest prognostic factor. Different histological subtypes confer different survival. However, in spite of the distinctive cytogenetic and molecular characteristics of the subtypes, the survival difference is to a large extent due to differences in grade and particularly stage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15964127     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  58 in total

1.  Vision Loss from Choroidal and Pituitary Metastases Secondary to Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Case Report.

Authors:  Laura D Selby; Hillary C Stiefel; Alison H Skalet; Molly S Cardenal; Kavita V Bhavsar; Kimberly M Winges
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2018-06-19

2.  Overexpression of placenta specific 8 is associated with malignant progression and poor prognosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Liping Shi; Long Xiao; Baoli Heng; Shijie Mo; Weijun Chen; Zexuan Su
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Validation of a Postoperative Nomogram Predicting Recurrence in Patients with Conventional Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Byron H Lee; Andrew Feifer; Michael A Feuerstein; Nicole E Benfante; Lei Kou; Changhong Yu; Michael W Kattan; Paul Russo
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2016-07-28

Review 4.  Prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Alessandro Volpe; Jean Jacques Patard
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-04-03       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Histology is a Prognostic Indicator After Pulmonary Metastasectomy from Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yoichi Ohtaki; Kimihiro Shimizu; Keiju Aokage; Masayuki Nakao; Junji Yoshida; Mitsuhiro Kamiyoshihara; Masayuki Sugano; Yusuke Takahashi; Seshiru Nakazawa; Toshiteru Nagashima; Kai Obayashi; Tomoyuki Hishida; Masahiro Tsuboi; Shohei Mori; Mingyon Mun; Sakae Okumura; Hitoshi Igai; Noriyuki Matsutani; Akira Mogi; Hiroyuki Kuwano
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  The role of surgery in clinical management of patients with metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Thomas Steiner; Hartmut Kirchner; Michael Siebels; Christian Doehn; Hans Heynemann; Zoltan Varga; Detlef Rohde; Joerg Schubert; Dieter Jocham; Christian Stief; Paolo Fornara; Rainer Hofmann; Stefan Loening; Jan Roigas
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-12-12       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Lymphopenia is an independent predictor of inferior outcome in clear cell renal carcinoma.

Authors:  Sunil Saroha; Robert G Uzzo; Elizabeth R Plimack; Karen Ruth; Tahseen Al-Saleem
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Positron emission tomography/computed tomography identification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from the REDECT trial.

Authors:  Chaitanya R Divgi; Robert G Uzzo; Constantine Gatsonis; Roman Bartz; Silke Treutner; Jian Qin Yu; David Chen; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Steven Larson; Paul Bevan; Paul Russo
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Age, tumor size and relative survival of patients with localized renal cell carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology and end results analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin J Scoll; Yu-Ning Wong; Brian L Egleston; David A Kunkle; Ismail R Saad; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Sub-typing of renal cell tumours; contribution of ancillary techniques.

Authors:  Dinesh Pradhan; Nandita Kakkar; Amanjit Bal; Shrawan Kumar Singh; Kusum Joshi
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2009-06-28       Impact factor: 2.644

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.