A critical assessment of the prognostic value of clear cell, papillary and chromophobe histological subtypes in renal cell carcinoma: a population‐based study

Abstract

represents an independent predictor of CSM, and whether HS adds to the ability of other variables to predict CSM. The covariates comprised age, year of surgery, T stage, nodal status, M stage and Fuhrman grade. RESULTSIn a multivariable model predicting CSM, HS was an independent predictor ( P = 0.03), but failed to improve the accuracy of the model ( + 0.1% gain when HS was included in the model). CONCLUSIONAlthough we confirmed that HS is an independent predictor for CSM, there was no gain in accuracy when HS was added to standard predictors of CSM. From a practical perspective, this implies that patients with clear cell, papillary and chromophobe HS share similar natural histories after nephrectomy, provided that other cancer characteristics are accounted for. From a statistical perspective, in multivariable models of CSM, the clear cell, papillary and chromophobe HS might be included as a single entity.

Expression of the Na+/K+-transporting ATPase gamma subunit FXYD2 in renal tumors

“…3,4 However, recent investigations have demonstrated equivalent prognosis between chromophobe RCC and conventional clear-cell RCC when tumors of equivalent stage are compared. 5,6 Pathological tumor stage, tumor necrosis, and sarcomatoid change correlate with chromophobe RCC prognosis. 7 The benign renal oncocytoma is a histological mimic of chromophobe RCC, particularly its eosinophilic variant.…”

FG has no added value in prediction of mortality after partial and radical nephrectomy for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma patients

“…It is a retrospective design, just like all previous studies that assessed the value of FG in renal cell carcinoma. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]15,16 Also, our study is limited by the variables that were recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. Information on the presence of tumor necrosis and nucleolar prominence would have added to its strength.…”

“…9-12 Here, FG was found to accurately predict prognosis and study populations included patients with chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. [9][10][11][12] Based on this lack of consensus, we decided to examine the discriminant accuracy of FG in prediction of cancer-specific mortality after partial or radical nephrectomy for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma patients. Specifically, we tested and quantified the added value of FG relative to other established prognostic factors.…”

“…1 To date, 11 studies tested the ability of FG in prediction of prognosis in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Seven of those failed to confirm the value of FG. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] However, all relied on small sample sizes (n ¼ 49-291), thus power may have been insufficient.…”

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Conversely, four other reported the opposite findings. [9][10][11][12] Here, FG was found to accurately predict prognosis and study populations included patients with chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. [9][10][11][12] Based on this lack of consensus, we decided to examine the discriminant accuracy of FG in prediction of cancer-specific mortality after partial or radical nephrectomy for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma patients.…”