Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 249–255 | Cite as

External validation of the RENAL nephrometry score nomogram for predicting high-grade renal cell carcinoma in solid, enhancing, and small renal masses

  • Kyo Chul Koo
  • Hanna Yoo
  • Tae Young Shin
  • Jongchan Kim
  • Young Deuk Choi
  • Koon Ho Rha
  • Won Sik HamEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To confirm predictive accuracies of the RENAL nephrometry score (RNS) nomogram for identifying malignancy and high-grade renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an external cohort of small renal masses (SRMs).

Methods

A total of 1,129 patients who underwent extirpative renal surgery for solid and enhancing cT1 renal tumors between 2005 and 2012 at a single institution were included in the validation cohort. A single uro-radiologist utilized computed tomography image reconstruction to classify tumors according to the RNS. The area under the curve (AUC) and calibration plots were used to determine predictive accuracies of malignancy and high-grade models of the RNS nomogram.

Results

Malignant and high-grade tumors were identified in 1,012 (89.6 %) and 389 (38.4 %) patients with cT1 tumors, and in 658 (87.3 %) and 215 (32.6 %) patients with cT1a tumors, respectively. Predictive performances of the nomogram for malignancy and high-grade models revealed AUCs of 0.722 and 0.574 for cT1 tumors, and 0.727 and 0.495 for cT1a tumors, respectively. The predictive value of the malignancy model was comparable to that of the model-development cohort (AUC = 0.76); however, the predictive value of the high-grade model was inferior to that of the model-development cohort (AUC = 0.73).

Conclusions

Unlike previous validation studies, we report inferior predictive performance of the RNS nomogram for discriminating high-grade RCC in solid and enhancing SRMs. This suggests that the RNS nomogram may be unreliable for preoperatively predicting high-grade RCC in SRMs, in which tumor size, the key determinant of high-grade RCC, is a limiting factor.

Keywords

Carcinoma Renal cell Nomograms Validation studies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL et al (2006) The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 175:425–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jewett MA, Mattar K, Basiuk J et al (2011) Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol 60:39–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunocilla E, Borghesi M, Monti C et al (2013) Surveillance for small renal masses: retrospective analysis of a cohort of 42 patients with long-term follow-up. Int Urol Nephrol 45:307–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drucker BJ (2005) Renal cell carcinoma: current status and future prospects. Cancer Treat Rev 31:536–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kutikov A, Egleston BL, Wong YN et al (2010) Evaluating overall survival and competing risks of death in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma using a comprehensive nomogram. J Clin Oncol 28:311–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A et al (2009) Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol 182:1271–1279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC et al (2010) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol 58:398–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosales JC, Haramis G, Moreno J et al (2010) Active surveillance for renal cortical neoplasms. J Urol 183:1698–1702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang HK, Zhu Y, Yao XD et al (2012) External validation of a nomogram using RENAL nephrometry score to predict high grade renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 187:1555–1560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL et al (2011) Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL Nephrometry score. Eur Urol 60:241–248PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 182:844–853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hock LM, Lynch J, Balaji KC (2002) Increasing incidence of all stages of kidney cancer in the last 2 decades in the United States: an analysis of surveillance, epidemiology and end results program data. J Urol 167:57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Volpe A (2007) The role of surveillance in the management of small renal masses. Sci World J 7:860–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vasudevan A, Davies RJ, Shannon BA et al (2006) Incidental renal tumours: the frequency of benign lesions and the role of preoperative core biopsy. BJU Int 97:946–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heuer R, Gill IS, Guazzoni G et al (2010) A critical analysis of the actual role of minimally invasive surgery and active surveillance for kidney cancer. Eur Urol 57:223–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jeldres C, Sun M, Liberman D et al (2009) Can renal mass biopsy assessment of tumor grade be safely substituted for by a predictive model? J Urol 182:2585–2589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lane BR, Babineau D, Kattan MW et al (2007) A preoperative prognostic nomogram for solid enhancing renal tumors 7 cm or less amenable to partial nephrectomy. J Urol 178:429–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC et al (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170:2217–2220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chapin BF, Wood CG (2011) The RENAL nephrometry nomogram: statistically significant, but is it clinically relevant? Eur Urol 60:249–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Satasivam P, Sengupta S, Rajarubendra N et al (2012) Renal lesions with low RENAL nephrometry score are associated with more indolent renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) or benign histology: findings in an Australian cohort. BJU Int 109:44–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guethmundsson E, Hellborg H, Lundstam S et al (2011) Metastatic potential in renal cell carcinomas </=7 cm: Swedish kidney cancer quality register data. Eur Urol 60:975–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bagrodia A, Harrow B, Liu Z et al. (2013) Evaluation of anatomic and morphologic nomogram to predict malignant and high-grade disease in a cohort of patients with small renal masses. Urol Oncol; doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.03.003

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyo Chul Koo
    • 1
  • Hanna Yoo
    • 2
  • Tae Young Shin
    • 3
  • Jongchan Kim
    • 1
  • Young Deuk Choi
    • 1
  • Koon Ho Rha
    • 1
  • Won Sik Ham
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology and Urological Science InstituteYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Biostatistics Collaboration LabYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of UrologyHallym University College of MedicineChuncheonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations