Tobias Klatte1,2,3, Sabrina H Rossi4,5, Grant D Stewart4,5. 1. Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. tobias.klatte@gmx.de. 2. Department of Urology, Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals, Castle Lane East, Bournemouth, BH7 7DW, UK. tobias.klatte@gmx.de. 3. Academic Urology Group, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. tobias.klatte@gmx.de. 4. Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. 5. Academic Urology Group, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Following curative treatment for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC), up to 30% of patients develop tumour recurrence. Prognostic scores are essential to guide individualised surveillance protocols, patient counselling and potentially in the future to guide adjuvant therapy. In metastatic RCC, prognostic scores are routinely used for treatment selection in clinical practice as well as in all major trials. METHODS: We performed a literature review on the current evidence based on prognostic factors and models for localised and metastatic RCC. RESULTS: A number of prognostic factors have been identified, of which tumour node metastasis classification remains the most important. Multiple prognostic models and nomograms have been developed for localised disease, based on a combination of tumour stage, grade, subtype, clinical features, and performance status. However, there is poor level of evidence for their routine use. Prognostic scores for patients with metastatic RCC receiving targeted treatments are used routinely, but have limited accuracy. Molecular markers can improve the accuracy of established prognostic models, but frequently lack external, independent validation. CONCLUSION: Several factors and models predict prognosis of localised and metastatic RCC. They represent valuable tools to provide estimates of clinically important endpoints, but their accuracy should be improved further. Validation of molecular markers is a future research priority.
PURPOSE: Following curative treatment for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC), up to 30% of patients develop tumour recurrence. Prognostic scores are essential to guide individualised surveillance protocols, patient counselling and potentially in the future to guide adjuvant therapy. In metastatic RCC, prognostic scores are routinely used for treatment selection in clinical practice as well as in all major trials. METHODS: We performed a literature review on the current evidence based on prognostic factors and models for localised and metastatic RCC. RESULTS: A number of prognostic factors have been identified, of which tumour node metastasis classification remains the most important. Multiple prognostic models and nomograms have been developed for localised disease, based on a combination of tumour stage, grade, subtype, clinical features, and performance status. However, there is poor level of evidence for their routine use. Prognostic scores for patients with metastatic RCC receiving targeted treatments are used routinely, but have limited accuracy. Molecular markers can improve the accuracy of established prognostic models, but frequently lack external, independent validation. CONCLUSION: Several factors and models predict prognosis of localised and metastatic RCC. They represent valuable tools to provide estimates of clinically important endpoints, but their accuracy should be improved further. Validation of molecular markers is a future research priority.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomarkers; Markers; Predictive; Prognosis; Renal cancer
Authors: Tobias Klatte; David B Seligson; Jeffrey LaRochelle; Brian Shuch; Jonathan W Said; Stephen B Riggs; Nazy Zomorodian; Fairooz F Kabbinavar; Allan J Pantuck; Arie S Belldegrun Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Y C Heng; J Connor Wells; Brian I Rini; Benoit Beuselinck; Jae-Lyun Lee; Jennifer J Knox; Georg A Bjarnason; Sumanta Kumar Pal; Christian K Kollmannsberger; Takeshi Yuasa; Sandy Srinivas; Frede Donskov; Aristotelis Bamias; Lori A Wood; D Scott Ernst; Neeraj Agarwal; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Sun Young Rha; Jenny J Kim; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Y C Heng; Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Lauren C Harshman; Georg A Bjarnason; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Mary Mackenzie; Lori Wood; Frede Donskov; Min-Han Tan; Sun-Young Rha; Neeraj Agarwal; Christian Kollmannsberger; Brian I Rini; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Tobias Klatte; Ken-ryu Han; Jonathan W Said; Malte Böhm; Ernst Peter Allhoff; Fairooz F Kabbinavar; Arie S Belldegrun; Allan J Pantuck Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Nick W Liu; James D Wren; Emily Vertosick; Justin K Lee; Nicholas E Power; Nicole E Benfante; Simon Y Kimm; Manjit S Bains; Daniel D Sjoberg; Paul Russo; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Grant D Stewart; Fiach C O'Mahony; Alexander Laird; Sukaina Rashid; Sarah A Martin; Lel Eory; Alexander L R Lubbock; Jyoti Nanda; Marie O'Donnell; Alan Mackay; Peter Mullen; S Alan McNeill; Antony C P Riddick; Michael Aitchison; Daniel Berney; Axel Bex; Ian M Overton; David J Harrison; Thomas Powles Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 20.096