The Prognostic Value of Fuhrman Nuclear Grade, 1997 TNM Classification and cell Type in Renal Cell Carcinoma.
- Author:
Uk LEE
;
Kyu Rae KIM
;
Han Jong AHN
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Renal cell carcinoma;
Prognostic factors
- MeSH:
Carcinoma, Renal Cell*;
Classification*;
Diagnosis;
Humans;
Joints;
Medical Records;
Multivariate Analysis;
Neoplasm Staging;
Nephrectomy
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2001;42(1):32-39
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: It is agreed that tumor stage is the definitive prognostic indicator for patients with renal cell carcinoma. We investigated pathologic grade and cell subtype as another prognostic in each tumor stage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 206 patients who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma between January 1991 and June 1998. Renal cell carcinoma grade, stage and cell subtype (conventional [clear cell], papillary, chromophobe, sarcomatoid type) were evaluated using the 1997 Union International Contre Ie cancer (UICC) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) grading, TNM staging criteria and renal cell carcinoma classification. Kaplan -Meier survival curves were used to determine 5-year survival for all patient groups. Univariate analysis using log rank test was performed to evaluate the prognostic significance of TNM stage, Fuhrman nuclear grade, cell subtype and tumor size. We investigated pathologic grade and cell subtype with log rank teat whether those were another significant prognostic factors in each tumor stage. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine which factors had an independent impact on survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed that TNM stage (p<0.001), pathologic grad (p<0.001) were the important prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma. Survival was affected significantly by tumor size when cutoff diameter for localized T1 lesions was 7cm but not 2.5cm. Pathologic grade had a significant impact on patient survival (p<0.0001). In the cell subtype chromophobe type had the best survival and sarcomatoid type had the worst survival though cell subtype did not appear to affect survival significantly (p=0.0583). Multivariate analysis revealed that N classification (p=0.009) and M classification (p=0.018) were the most important prognostic indicators for cell subtype (p=0.841) were not shown to have any independent impact on patient survival. In the group of localized disease(TXN0M0 stage) at the diagnosis, cell subtype had a significant impact on survival in T1(p<0.001), T2(p=0.01) and T3(p=0.029) and grade in T1(p=0.0016) and T3(p=0.0054). CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic grade and cell subtype were significant predictors of survival in each T stage of localized disease though they didn't have independent impact on the patient survival.
