OBJECTIVES: To review the most recent data on prognostic factors and describe the characteristics and prognostic accuracy of the most important prognostic systems available to predict the risk of recurrence, progression, and mortality in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: The study was based on a non-systematic review of literature. RESULTS: Clinical (performance status, and mode of presentation), anatomical (size and extension of the primary tumor, lymph node involvement, and distant metastasis), and histological factors (histological subtypes, nuclear grade, and tumor necrosis) are the most largely evaluated prognostic factors in RCC. Valuable prognostic accuracy has been shown for several laboratory parameters (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, platelet count, serum calcium, hemoglobin, and lactate dehydrogenase levels) and a few genetical and molecular markers (CAIX, B7-H1, and B7-H4). A few integrating systems have been proposed and validated, integrating both clinical and pathological (UCLA Integrating Staging Systems, Kattan nomogram, and Sorbellini nomogram) or only pathological variables (SSIGN score). CONCLUSIONS: Several large and methodologically consistent studies have been published. The chance to integrate the data derived from each prognostic factor into prognostic algorithms and scores has allowed improving significantly the stratification of the prognosis of patients with RCC. The currently available prognostic systems can be further improved through the inclusion of molecular and genetic variables. Integrating prognostic systems should be used to design randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which will evaluate the efficacy of the new-targeted therapies in either neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or salvage treatments of patients with RCC.
OBJECTIVES: To review the most recent data on prognostic factors and describe the characteristics and prognostic accuracy of the most important prognostic systems available to predict the risk of recurrence, progression, and mortality in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: The study was based on a non-systematic review of literature. RESULTS: Clinical (performance status, and mode of presentation), anatomical (size and extension of the primary tumor, lymph node involvement, and distant metastasis), and histological factors (histological subtypes, nuclear grade, and tumor necrosis) are the most largely evaluated prognostic factors in RCC. Valuable prognostic accuracy has been shown for several laboratory parameters (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, platelet count, serum calcium, hemoglobin, and lactate dehydrogenase levels) and a few genetical and molecular markers (CAIX, B7-H1, and B7-H4). A few integrating systems have been proposed and validated, integrating both clinical and pathological (UCLA Integrating Staging Systems, Kattan nomogram, and Sorbellini nomogram) or only pathological variables (SSIGN score). CONCLUSIONS: Several large and methodologically consistent studies have been published. The chance to integrate the data derived from each prognostic factor into prognostic algorithms and scores has allowed improving significantly the stratification of the prognosis of patients with RCC. The currently available prognostic systems can be further improved through the inclusion of molecular and genetic variables. Integrating prognostic systems should be used to design randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which will evaluate the efficacy of the new-targeted therapies in either neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or salvage treatments of patients with RCC.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; François Guillè; Luigi Schips; Alexander de la Taille; Tommaso Prayer Galetti; Jacques Tostain; Luca Cindolo; Giacomo Novara; Richard Zigeuner; Emiliano Bratti; Guorong Li; Vincenzo Altieri; Claude C Abbou; Luisa Zanolla; Walter Artibani; Jean-Jacques Patard Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bradley C Leibovich; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Horst Zincke; Igor Frank; Eugene D Kwon; Jaime R Merchan; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M de Peralta-Venturina; H Moch; M Amin; P Tamboli; S Hailemariam; M Mihatsch; J Javidan; H Stricker; J Y Ro; M B Amin Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Carlo Terrone; C Cracco; F Porpiglia; E Bollito; C Scoffone; M Poggio; A Berruti; F Ragni; M Cossu; R M Scarpa; S Rocca Rossetti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michael Atkins; Meredith Regan; David McDermott; James Mier; Eric Stanbridge; Amanda Youmans; Philip Febbo; Melissa Upton; Mirna Lechpammer; Sabina Signoretti Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Amnon Zisman; Allan J Pantuck; Fredrick Dorey; Debby H Chao; Barbara J Gitlitz; Nancy Moldawer; Dana Lazarovici; Jean B deKernion; Robert A Figlin; Arie S Belldegrun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Susan M Kuntz; Bradley C Leibovich; Haidong Dong; Christine M Lohse; W Scott Webster; Shomik Sengupta; Igor Frank; Alexander S Parker; Horst Zincke; Michael L Blute; Thomas J Sebo; John C Cheville; Eugene D Kwon Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Ilaria Lucca; Michela de Martino; Sebastian L Hofbauer; Nura Zamani; Shahrokh F Shariat; Tobias Klatte Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sandra Waalkes; Axel S Merseburger; Thomas R W Herrmann; Mario W Kramer; Gerd Wegener; Julia Rustemeier; Rainer Hofmann; Markus A Kuczyk; Andres J Schrader Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Turang E Behbahani; Claudia Thierse; Claudia Baumann; Daniel Holl; Patrick J Bastian; Alexander von Ruecker; Stefan C Müller; Jörg Ellinger; Stefan Hauser Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 4.226
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