DNA Content, Nuclear Grading and Early Tumor Progression in Renal Cell Cancer:
A Prospective Study on Frozen Specimens

Ao, Cavazzana; Prayer-Galetti, Tommaso; Sangiorgio, Arianna; As, Fassina; M, Panozzo; Zucchetta, Pietro; Pagano, Federica

doi:10.1159/000474778

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, significant differences in disease‐free survival were shown only for patients with low (G1, G2) or high (G3) nuclear grade tumors, as has been previously reported. 26 Therefore, among patients with low‐grade tumors, additional parameters are needed to recognize those patients who are at high risk for local relapse or metastasis so that they may benefit from adjuvant treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic significance of tumor grade for renal cell carcinoma

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The natural history and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma cannot be predicted. Based on the Japanese classification system, the value of nuclear grade were assessed as a possible prognostic factor for renal cell carcinomas. Methods:In this retrospective study of 116 patients with renal cell carcinoma, radical nephrectomy was performed. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis was performed using Cox's proportional hazard model. Results:Distribution by stage and grade in the population of renal cell carcinomas was as follows: pT1 in 13 cases (11.3%), pT2 in 65 cases (56.5%), pT3 in 36 cases (31.3%) and pT4 in one case (0. 9%) and grade 1, 28 (24.1%), grade 2, 69 (59.5%) and grade 3, 16 (13.8%). Three cases could not be determined because of pre-operative embolization of the renal cell carcinomas. Nuclear grade was correlated with stage (P = 0.0002), the presence of perirenal fat involvement (P = 0.003) and metastases (P = 0.007). A significant difference in survival was found between grades 1 and 3 (P = 0.0001) and grades 2 and 3 (P = 0.0001), respectively. Survival was significantly correlated with sex (P = 0.0125), tumor size (P = 0.0001), the presence of lymph node metastasis (P = 0.0001), renal vein involvement (P = 0.0001), perirenal fat involvement (P = 0.002) or distant metastasis (P = 0.0001). The multivariate analysis showed that the occurrence of tumor grade (P = 0.0006) or distant metastasis were independent prognostic values. Conclusion:The observations lead us to conclude that the nuclear grade according to the Japanese classification system appears to be of reliable prognostic value for renal cell carcinomas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic significance of tumor grade for renal cell carcinoma

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Identification of patients at particularly high tumor progression risk is a matter of the greatest oncologic importance. This is particularly true in the case of the renal cell carcinoma, since prognoses for this type of tumor based on the standard criteria tumor grade and stage are unreliable [21]. In a search for addi tional, more precise prognostic parameters, several medi cal research groups have in recent years been working on determination of the proliferation potential of renal cell carcinomas.…”

Section: Dnamentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation between DNA Ploidy, Proliferation Marker Ki-67 and Early Tumor Progression in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Papadopoulos

Weichert-Jacobsen²,

Wacker³

et al. 1997

Eur Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The survival of patients with organ‐confined RCC who undergo nephrectomy is difficult to predict because of its heterogeneous biologic nature. The foremost important prognostic factors are tumor stage and grade, although they are not considered entirely reliable 1. Nevertheless, prediction of disease outcome often is flawed, because some patients with low tumor stages experience disease progression with a reported recurrence rate of up to 40% 2…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The superior prognostic value of humoral factors compared with molecular proliferation markers in renal cell carcinoma

Lehmann

Retz

Nürnberg

et al. 2004

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND The American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer have acknowledged routine laboratory parameters, such as serum calcium, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), as predictors of survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The predictive value of these parameters compared with proliferation markers, such as Ki‐67, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), topoisomerase II‐α, and p100, has not been determined. METHODS Forty‐eight consecutive patients who underwent nephrectomy for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma between 1990 and 1994 were observed up to 120 months postoperatively. Ten of 48 patients developed tumor progression 6–69 months after surgery. Routine preoperative laboratory parameters as well as tumor‐specific data were assessed. Findings were compared with tumor proliferation indices, which were obtained by immunohistochemical staining for nuclear antigens Ki‐67, PCNA, topoisomerase II‐α, and p100 in paraffin embedded tumor tissue. RESULTS Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses demonstrated superiority of routine laboratory values compared with tumor proliferation indices in predicting progression‐free survival and disease‐specific death. The best predictor after tumor size and symptomatic presentation was ESR (P < 0.0001), with ESR values > 70 mm at 2 hours indicating a significantly poorer prognosis. Only the proliferation marker Ki‐67 reached univariate significance at a threshold of 7%. CONCLUSIONS Routine laboratory parameters, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, thrombocyte count, and especially ESR, provided superior long‐term prognostic information for patients with nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma compared with the molecular tumor proliferation markers Ki‐67, PCNA, topoisomerase II‐α, and p100. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

DNA Content, Nuclear Grading and Early Tumor Progression in Renal Cell Cancer: A Prospective Study on Frozen Specimens

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Prognostic significance of tumor grade for renal cell carcinoma

Prognostic significance of tumor grade for renal cell carcinoma

Correlation between DNA Ploidy, Proliferation Marker Ki-67 and Early Tumor Progression in Renal Cell Carcinoma

The superior prognostic value of humoral factors compared with molecular proliferation markers in renal cell carcinoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About