Literature DB >> 21716085

Grading of clear cell renal cell carcinoma should be based on nucleolar prominence.

Brett Delahunt1, Dianne Sika-Paotonu, Peter B Bethwaite, Thomas William Jordan, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Ming Zhou, Hemamali Samaratunga, John R Srigley.   

Abstract

Fuhrman grading of renal cell carcinoma focuses on features of nuclear size, nuclear shape, and nucleolar prominence. Despite the reported widespread usage of Fuhrman grading in clinical studies, there is debate as to the prognostic significance and reproducibility of its criteria. It has been noted that many pathologists rely on assessment of nucleolar prominence alone when grading renal cell carcinoma; however, the validity of this remains unconfirmed. This study was undertaken to determine the relationship of the 3 morphologic components of the Fuhrman grading system with one another and to determine which, if any of these, can be correlated with outcome for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. One hundred twenty-one organ-confined clear cell renal cell carcinomas were examined in this study. Parameters of nuclear size (area, major axis, perimeter) and nuclear shape (shape factor, nuclear compactness) were assessed by image analysis, whereas nucleolar prominence was assigned (grades 1 to 3) using the criteria of Fuhrman. On the basis of the predominant grade present, there were 17 nucleolar grade 1, 90 nucleolar grade 2, and 14 nucleolar grade 3 tumors. When the high-power field in each tumor with the worst nucleolar grade was assessed, there was 1 nucleolar grade 1, 68 nucleolar grade 2, and 52 nucleolar grade 3 tumors. Predominant and worst nucleolar grade correlated with all measures of nuclear size, but not nuclear shape. Worst nucleolar grade and all parameters of nuclear size were significantly associated with outcome. On multivariate analysis, worst nucleolar grade retained a significant association with survival when modeled with nuclear area. Neither worst nucleolar grade nor major nuclear axis/nuclear perimeter was significantly associated with survival when modeled together. In this study, we have shown that worst nucleolar grade and nuclear size are of prognostic significance for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. We have further shown the association of worst nucleolar grade with outcome to be independent of nuclear area, whereas it is a dependent variable when tested against other parameters of nuclear size. These findings indicate that worst nucleolar grading alone is a valid grading parameter for clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21716085     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318220697f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  23 in total

1.  [The WHO/ISUP grading system for renal carcinoma].

Authors:  H Moch
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.011

2.  Canadian Urological Association guideline for followup of patients after treatment of non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Wassim Kassouf; Leonardo L Monteiro; Darrel E Drachenberg; Adrian S Fairey; Antonio Finelli; Anil Kapoor; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Michael J Leveridge; Nicholas E Power; Frederic Pouliot; Ricardo A Rendon; Robert Sabbagh; Alan I So; Simon Tanguay; Rodney H Breau
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas: A 15th anniversary update.

Authors:  Jatin S Gandhi; Faizan Malik; Mahul B Amin; Pedram Argani; Armita Bahrami
Journal:  Histol Histopathol       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 4.  [Renal cancer biomarkers. What is justified?].

Authors:  H Moch
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.011

5.  Fuhrman grading is inappropriate for papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; John R Srigley; Hemamali Samaratunga
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Does the Fuhrman or World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology Grading System Apply to the Xp11.2 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma?: A 10-Year Single-Center Study.

Authors:  Ning Liu; Weidong Gan; Feng Qu; Zhen Wang; Wenyuan Zhuang; Sezim Agizamhan; Linfeng Xu; Juanjuan Yin; Hongqian Guo; Dongmei Li
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.307

7.  Prognostic significance of Fuhrman grade and age for cancer-specific and overall survival in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma: results of an international multi-institutional study on 2189 patients.

Authors:  H Borgmann; M Musquera; A Haferkamp; A Vilaseca; T Klatte; S F Shariat; A Scavuzzo; M A Jimenez Rios; I Wolff; U Capitanio; P Dell'Oglio; L M Krabbe; E Herrmann; T Ecke; D Vergho; N Huck; N Wagener; S Pahernik; S Zastrow; M Wirth; C Surcel; C Mirvald; K Prochazkova; G Hutterer; R Zigeuner; L Cindolo; M Hora; C G Stief; M May; S D Brookman-May
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Biomarkers in renal cancer.

Authors:  Holger Moch; John Srigley; Brett Delahunt; Rodolfo Montironi; Lars Egevad; Puay Hoon Tan
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Development and validation of a vascularity-based architectural classification for clear cell renal cell carcinoma: correlation with conventional pathological prognostic factors, gene expression patterns, and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Chisato Ohe; Takashi Yoshida; Mahul B Amin; Naho Atsumi; Junichi Ikeda; Kazuho Saiga; Yuri Noda; Yoshiki Yasukochi; Riuko Ohashi; Haruyuki Ohsugi; Koichiro Higasa; Hidefumi Kinoshita; Koji Tsuta
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 7.842

10.  Effects on survival of BAP1 and PBRM1 mutations in sporadic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma: a retrospective analysis with independent validation.

Authors:  Payal Kapur; Samuel Peña-Llopis; Alana Christie; Leah Zhrebker; Andrea Pavía-Jiménez; W Kimryn Rathmell; Xian-Jin Xie; James Brugarolas
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 41.316

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.