Literature DB >> 17125908

What does the urologist expect from the pathologist (and what can the pathologists give) in reporting on adult kidney tumour specimens?

Ziya Kirkali1, Ferran Algaba, Marina Scarpelli, Isabel Trias, Francesco P Selvaggi, Hein Van Poppel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the parameters required by the urologist to determine the prognosis and the treatment of renal cancer in adults, and to establish the potential therapeutic targets of the new treatments that started to show clinical efficacy.
METHODS: A literature search of the last 10 yr was done, paying specific attention to TNM 2002 (UICC staging) and Fuhrman's grading. Also, the main genetic characteristics of the different subtypes (according to the WHO 2004 classification) with potential therapeutic implications have been compiled.
RESULTS: After the review of the literature, the opinion of the joint meeting including urologists and pathologists is that some aspects of the TNM 2002 classification must be refined. Criteria for nuclear grading should be different for the subtypes of renal cell carcinoma, and the WHO 2004 histological classification is clinically useful.
CONCLUSIONS: In the workshop held in Palermo, common opinion was achieved on a number of points. The TNM 2002 classification is useful, but some adjustments should be made, particularly as referred to the tumour size cut-off, assessment of the invasion of the renal sinus fat tissue, and invasion of the ipsilateral adrenal gland. The Fuhrman's grading system is useful in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and probably also in papillary RCC, but a redefinition for chromophobe RCC is needed. Finally, the determination of certain markers, such as VEGF and HIF, could constitute good target markers for the new therapies, but they remain under investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17125908     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.024

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Surgical Margins in Nephron-Sparing Surgery for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Dean D Laganosky; Christopher P Filson; Viraj A Master
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  [Renal cell carcinoma 2008. Histopathology, molecular genetics and new therapeutic options].

Authors:  C G Hammerschmied; B Walter; A Hartmann
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Urinary collecting system invasion reflects adverse long-term outcome and is associated with simultaneous metastatic spread at the time of surgery and with multilocular dissemination during postsurgical follow-up in renal cell cancer.

Authors:  Sabine Brookman-Amissah; Matthias May; Knut Albrecht; Thomas Herrmann; Jan Roigas; Christian Peter Gilfrich; Sandra Pflanz; Sven Gunia
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Increased expression of Chitinase 3-like 1 and microvessel density predicts metastasis and poor prognosis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Jian-Ping Zhang; Hai-Xia Yuan; Wen-Tao Kong; Yujun Liu; Zong-Ming Lin; Wen-Ping Wangs; Jian-Ming Guo
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-08-21

5.  Oncological Outcomes of Patients With Different Pathological Features of pT3a Renal Tumor: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis.

Authors:  Pengju Guo; Yongxing Wang; Yili Han; Dechao Wei; Jiahui Zhao; Mingchuan Li; Yongguang Jiang; Yong Luo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Virtual karyotyping with SNP microarrays reduces uncertainty in the diagnosis of renal epithelial tumors.

Authors:  Jill M Hagenkord; Anil V Parwani; Maureen A Lyons-Weiler; Karla Alvarez; Robert Amato; Zoran Gatalica; Jose M Gonzalez-Berjon; Leif Peterson; Rajiv Dhir; Federico A Monzon
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2008-11-06       Impact factor: 2.644

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.