Prognostic Value of Renal Cell Carcinoma Nuclear Grading: Multivariate Analysis of 333 CasesFicarra V.a · Righetti R.a · Martignoni G.b · D’Amico A.a · Pilloni S.a · Rubilotta E.a · Malossini G.a · Mobilio G.a
Departments of aUrology and bPathology, University of Verona, Italy
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Objective: To evaluate the independent predictive value of the nuclear grading system according to Fuhrman in relation to the disease-specific survival of patients with renal clear cell carcinoma. Material and Methods: 333 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy for renal clear cell carcinoma between 1983 and 1999 were evaluated. In all patients we retrospectively studied nuclear grading, average tumor size, multifocality, pathologic stage of primary tumor, vein invasion, lymph node involvement and distant metastases. The Kaplan-Meier method was applied to evaluate disease-specific survival rates. The log rank test was used to compare survival curves and for univariate analysis. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for the multivariate analysis. Results: Histologic grade was G1 in 83 cases (25%), G2 in 117 cases (35%), G3 in 110 cases (33%) and G4 in 23 cases (7%). Our data showed that nuclear grading according to Fuhrman is related to medium tumor size (p < 0.0001), pathologic stage of cancer (p < 0.001), venous system invasion (p < 0.001), lymph node involvement (p < 0.001) and distant metastases (p < 0.001). The disease-specific survival after 5 and 10 years was 94 and 88%, respectively, in patients with G1, 86 and 75% in patients with G2, 59 and 40% in patients with G3 and 31% in patients with G4 (log rank p value < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that nuclear grading by Fuhrman has a prognostic independent predictive value (hazard ratio = 1.8461, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Nuclear grading is an important independent predictive factor of disease-specific survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma.
© 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
- Landis SH, Maurray T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin 1998;48:6.
- Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, Fraumeni JF: Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA 1999;281:1628–1631.
- Kessler O, Mukamel E, Hadar H, Gillon G, Koneckezky, Servadio C: Effect of renal cell carcinoma on the course of the disease. J Surg Oncol 1994;57:201–204.
- Skinner D, Colvin R, Vermillion CD, Pfister RC, Leadbetter WF: Diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma: A clinical and pathologic study of 309 cases. Cancer 1971;28:1165.
- Selli C, Hinshaw WW, Woodard BH, Paulson DF: Stratification of risk factors in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 1983;52:899–903.
- Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C: Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1982;6:655–663.
Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, de Fromont M, et al: Prognostic value of nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 1995;75:2543.
- Tsui K, Shavarts O, Smith RB, Figlin RA, de Kernion JB, Belldegrun A: Prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma: A multivariate analysis of 643 patients using the revised 1997 TNM staging criteria. J Urol 2000;163:1090–1095.
- Goldstein NS: Grading of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 1999;26:637–642.
- Guinan P, Sobin LH, Algaba F, et al: TNM staging of renal cell carcinoma: Work group No 3. Cancer 1997;80:992–993.
- Bonsib SM: Risk and prognosis in renal neoplasms: A pathologist’s prospective. Urol Clin North Am 1999;26:643–660.
- Delahunt B: Histopathologic prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma. Semin Diagn Pathol 1998;15:68.
- Dinney CPN, Awad SA, Gajewski JB, et al: Analysis of imaging modalities, staging systems and prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma. Urology 1992;39:122.
- Grignon DJ, Ayala AG, El-Naggar A, et al: Renal cell carcinoma: A clinicopathologic and DNA flow cytometric analysis of 103 cases. Cancer 1989;64:2133.
- Medeiros LS, Gelb AB, Weiss LM: Renal cell carcinoma: Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in 121 cases. Cancer 1988;61:1639.
- Giberti C, Oneto F, Martorana G, Rovida S, Carmignani G: Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Long-term results and prognostic factors on a series of 328 cases. Eur Urol 1997;31:40–48.
- Van Brussel JP, Mickisch GHJ: Prognostic factors in renal cell and bladder cancer. BJU Int 1999;83:902–909.
Haund J, Broders A: Carcinoma of the kidney: The degree of malignancy in relation to factors bearing on prognosis. J Urol 1932;28:199.
- Green LK, Ayala AG, Ro JY, et al: Role of nuclear grading in stage I renal cell carcinoma. Urology 1989;34:310.
- Lanigan D, Conroy R, Barry-Walsh C, et al: A comparative analysis of grading systems in renal adenocarcinoma. Histopathology 1994;24:473.
- Bostwick DG, Eble JN: Diagnosis and classification or renal carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 1999;26:627–635.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.