Handling and Reporting of Tumor-Containing Kidney Specimens

Che, Mingxin; Grignon, David J.

doi:10.1016/j.cll.2005.01.009

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous sampling recommendations have been to take at least one block/cm of greatest dimension of tumor (26, 28). Areas of different appearance or consistency and blocks to demonstrate tumor relationship with peri-renal fat, renal sinus, renal pelvis and adrenal gland should also be taken.…”

Section: Sampling Tumormentioning

confidence: 99%

The ISUP system of staging, grading and classification of renal cell neoplasia

Samaratunga

Gianduzzo

Delahunt

2014

jkcvhl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been significant changes in the staging, classification and grading of renal cell neoplasia in recent times. Major changes have occurred in our understanding of extra-renal extension by renal cell cancer and how gross specimens must be handled to optimally display extra-renal spread. Since the 1981 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of renal tumors, in which only a handful of different entities were reported, many new morphological types have been described in the literature, resulting in 50 different entities reported in the 2004 WHO classification. Since 2004, further new entities have been recognized and reported necessitating an update of the renal tumor classification. There have also been numerous grading systems for renal cell carcinoma with Fuhrman grading, the most widely used system. In recent times, the prognostic value and the applicability of the Fuhrman grading system in practice has been shown to be, at best, suboptimal. To address these issues and to recommend reporting guidelines, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) undertook a review of adult renal neoplasia through an international consensus conference in Vancouver in 2012. The conduct of the conference was based upon evidence from the literature and the current practice amongst recognized experts in the field. Working groups selected to deal with key topics evaluated current data and identified points of controversy. A pre-meeting survey of the ISUP membership was followed by the consensus conference at which a formal ballot was taken on each key issue. A 65% majority vote was taken as consensus. This review summarizes the outcome and recommendations of this conference with regards to staging, classification and grading of renal cell neoplasia.

show abstract

Section: Sampling Tumormentioning

confidence: 99%

The ISUP system of staging, grading and classification of renal cell neoplasia

Samaratunga

Gianduzzo

Delahunt

2014

jkcvhl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few guidelines exist regarding the extent of sampling of tumours and the respondents in the survey appear to sample widely, with a majority using the algorithm of one section per centimetre diameter of tumour 7. Almost all respondents took sections from all tumours in cases of multifocal neoplasia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handling and reporting of nephrectomy specimens for adult renal tumours: a survey by the European Network of Uropathology

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo collect information on current practices of European pathologists for the handling and reporting of nephrectomy specimens with renal tumours. Methods and Results A questionnaire was circulated to the members of the European Network of Uropathology, which consists of 343 pathologists in 15 European countries. Replies were received from 48% of members. These replies indicated that nephrectomy specimens are most often received in formalin. Lymph nodes are found in less than 5% of nephrectomy specimens. All respondents give an objective measure of tumour size, most commonly in three diameters. The most common method to search for capsule penetration is to slice tissue outside the tumour perpendicularly into the tumour. The most common sampling algorithm from tumours greater than 2 cm is one section for every centimetre of maximum tumour diameter. Most respondents use the 2004 WHO renal tumour classification although only slightly over half consider small papillary tumours malignant if the diameter is greater than 5 mm. The Fuhrman grading system is widely used. Almost all use immunohistochemistry for histological typing in some cases, while only 7% always use it. The most utilised special stains are CK7 (95%), CD10 (93%), vimentin (86%), HMB45 (68%), c-kit (61%) and Hale's colloidal iron (52%). Only 18% use other ancillary techniques for diagnosis in difficult cases. Conclusions While most pathologists appear to follow published guidelines for reporting renal carcinoma, there is still a need for the development of consensus and further standardisation of practice for contentious areas of specimen handling and reporting.The second edition of the WHO classification of renal tumours, published in 1981, divided carcinomas of the renal parenchyma into two categoriesdrenal cell carcinoma and other.1 At that time, there were limited treatment options for these tumours and as there were few validated prognostic factors, histological reports were somewhat basic. In recent years there has been an enormous expansion in our understanding of the histogenesis, morphology and molecular biology of these tumours, and it is now recognised that renal cell carcinoma is not a single entity but a diverse group of tumours with differing morphology, genetics and clinical course.

show abstract

“…Grade assignment was balanced in the series, with 40 cases being low grade (G1/2) and Tissue specimens. Current protocols for handling tumor-containing kidney specimens (10) were followed in all cases. Cases were received fresh in the pathology laboratory and represented tumor tissue samples of surgical specimens.…”

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Selected tissue was frozen with isopentane and stored at Ϫ80°C within the first 30 min of removal until the enzyme assays were performed. Nephrectomies were sliced and fixed in formalin for 24 h. Tissue sampling for paraffin embedding was performed as previously reported (10).…”

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of peptidase activity on clear cell renal cell carcinoma survival

Larrinaga

Blanco

Sanz

et al. 2012

American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have proposed that protease expression and activity may have a predictive value in the survival of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC). Most efforts on this issue have been focused on the analysis of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) and very little on the role of other proteases, such as peptidases. The catalytic activity of 9 peptidases (APN, APB, ASP, CAP, DPP-IV, NEP/CD10, PEP, PGI, and PSA) was quantified by fluorometric methods in a series of 79 CCRCC patients, and the results obtained were analyzed for survival (Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test, and Cox multivariate analysis). CCRCC patients with higher activity levels of membrane-bound APN and soluble APN, DPP-IV, and CAP had significantly shorter 5-yr survival rates than those with lower levels. By contrast, higher soluble APB activity significantly correlated with longer survival. Our data suggest the involvement of peptidases in the biological aggressiveness of CCRCC and support the usefulness of measuring these proteases to assess the prognosis of patients with CCRCC.

show abstract

Handling and Reporting of Tumor-Containing Kidney Specimens

Cited by 8 publications

References 64 publications

The ISUP system of staging, grading and classification of renal cell neoplasia

The ISUP system of staging, grading and classification of renal cell neoplasia

Handling and reporting of nephrectomy specimens for adult renal tumours: a survey by the European Network of Uropathology

The impact of peptidase activity on clear cell renal cell carcinoma survival

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About