Renal cell carcinoma: A clinicopathological follow-up study after radical nephrectomy

References

• Atlas of cancer incidence in Sweden. Linköping: Swedish Oncological Centres; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Maffei N, Brunelli M, Novara M, Zanolla L, et al. Original and reviewed nuclear grading according to the Fuhrman system. A multivariate analysis of 388 patients with conventional renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 103: 68–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol 2002; 168: 2395–400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moch H, Gasser T, Amin MB, Torhorst J, Sauter G, Mihatsch MJ. Prognostic utility of the recently recommended histologic classification and revised TNM staging system of renal cell carcinoma. A Swiss experience with 588 tumours. Cancer 2000; 89: 604–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderlich H, Dreihaupt M, Schlichter A, Kosmehl H, Reichelt O, Schubert J. New cut-off point between T1 and T2 renal cell carcinoma—necessary for a better discriminatory power of TNM classification. Urol Int 2004; 72: 123–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Chao D, Dorey F, Said JW, Gitlitz BJ, et al. Reevaluation of the 1997 TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: T1 and T2 cutoff point at 4.5 rather than 7 cm. better correlates with clinical outcome. J Urol 2001; 166: 54–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin MB, Amin MB, Tamboli P, Javidan J, Stricker H, Venturiana MDP, et al. Prognostic impact of histologic subtyping of adult renal epithelial neoplasms: an experience of 405 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 281–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patard JJ, Leray E, Rioux-Leclercq N, Cindolo L, Ficarra V, Zisman A, et al. Prognostic value of histologic subtypes in renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter experience. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2763–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Aynati M, Chen V, Salama S, Shuhaibar H, Treleaven D, Vincic L. Interobserver and intraobserver variability using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003; 127: 593–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanigan D, Conroy R, Barry-Walsh C, Loftus B, Royston D, Leader M. A comparative analysis of grading systems in renal adenocarcinoma. Histopathology 1994; 24: 473–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang H, Lindner V, de Fromont M, Molinie V, Letourneux H, Meyer N, et al. Multicenter determination of optimal interobserver agreement using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Assessment of 241 patients with >15 year follow-up. Cancer 2005; 103: 625–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengupta S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Frank I, Thompson RH, Webster WS, et al. Histologic coagulative tumor necrosis as a prognostic indicator of renal cell carcinoma aggressiveness. Cancer 2005; 104: 511–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorbellini M, Kattan MW, Snyder ME, Reuter V, Motzer R, Goetzl M, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence for patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2005; 173: 48–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oken NM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982; 5: 649–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz A, Balch CM, Haller DG, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual6th ed. Springer-Verlag, New York 2002; 323–8
   Google Scholar
• Kovacs G, Akhtar M, Beckwith BJ, Bugert P, Cooper CS, Delahunt B, et al. The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours. J Pathol 1997; 183: 131–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1982; 6: 655–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Wieder J, Chao DH, Dorey F, Said JW, et al. Risk group assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to predict the natural history of patients with surgically resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 4559–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modelling survival data: extending the Cox model. Springer-Verlag, New York 2000
   Google Scholar
• Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996; 15: 361–87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giuliani L, Giberti C, Martorana G, Rovida S. Radical extensive surgery for renal cell carcinoma: long-term results and prognostic factors. J Urol 1990; 143: 468–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, de Fromont M, Sault MC, Rampal M, Coulange C. Prognostic value of nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 1995; 76: 2543–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minervini R, Minervini A, Fontana C, Traversi C, Cristofani R. Evaluation of the 1997 tumour, nodes and metastases classification of renal cell carcinoma: experience in 172 patients. BJU Int 2000; 86: 199–202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delahunt B, Kittelson JM, McCredie MRE, Reeve AE, Stewart JH, Bilous AM. Prognostic importance of tumour size for localized conventional (clear cell) renal cell carcinoma: assessment of TNM T1 and T2 tumour categories and comparison with other prognostic parameters. Cancer 2002; 94: 658–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficarra V, Guille F, Schips L, de la Taile A, Galetti TP, Tostain J, et al. Proposal for revision of the TNM classification system for renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 104: 2116–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner T, Knels R, Schubert J. Prognostic significance of tumour size in patients after tumour nephrectomy for localised renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2004; 46: 327–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafez KS, Fergany AF, Novic AC. Nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumour size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and TNM staging. J Urol 1999; 162: 1930–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank I, Blute ML, Leibovich BC, Bradley C, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, et al. pT2 classification for renal cell carcinoma. Can its accuracy be improved?. J Urol 2005; 173: 380–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cindolo L, de la Taille A, Messina G, Romis L, Abbou CC, Altieri A, et al. A preoperative clinical prognostic model for non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2003; 92: 901–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Dorey F, Said JW, Shvarts O, Quintana D, et al. Improved prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an integrated staging system. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 1649–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minervini A, Lilas L, Minervini R, Selli C. Prognostic value of nuclear grading in patients with intracapsular (pT1–pT2) renal cell carcinoma: long-term analysis in 213 patients. Cancer 2002; 94: 2590–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar