Current Urology Reports

, 18:15 | Cite as

Recurrence in Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma: a Systematic Review of Contemporary Data

  • Jacqueline M. Speed
  • Quoc-Dien Trinh
  • Toni K. Choueiri
  • Maxine Sun
Kidney Diseases (G Ciancio, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Kidney Diseases


Purpose of Review

Patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are at risk of recurrence. The purpose of this review was to characterize the literature on recurrence rates and risk factors after diagnosis of localized RCC.

Recent Findings

Our search revealed that existing data examining the prevalence of recurrence rates predominantly originates from cohorts of patients diagnosed and treated in the 1980s to 1990s, and may therefore not be as useful for counseling for current patients today. Many nomograms including the Cindolo Recurrence Risk Formula, the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) Integrated Scoring System (UISS), the SSIGN score, the Kattan nomogram, and the Karakiewicz nomogram have shown value in identifying patients at higher risk for recurrence. Biomarkers and gene assays have shown promise in augmenting the predictive accuracy of some of the aforementioned predictive models, especially when multiple gene markers are used in combination. However, more work is needed in not only developing a model but also validating it in other settings prior to clinical use. Adjuvant therapy is a promising new treatment strategy for patients with high-risk disease. Importantly, too many surveillance strategies exist. This may stem from the lack of a consensus in the urological community in how to follow these patients, as well as the variable guideline recommendations.


In conclusion, contemporary recurrence rates are needed. Recurrence risk prediction models should be developed based on a series of more contemporary patients, and externally validated prior to routine clinical practice. Surveillance strategies following treatment of localized RCC need to be identified and standardized. Finally, there is a trend toward personalizing surveillance regimens to more appropriately screen patients at higher risk of recurrence.


Recurrent renal cell carcinoma Surveillance in renal cell Biomarkers in renal cell Risk factors for renal cell recurrence Localized renal cell carcinoma Treatment of localized renal cell carcinoma 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Jacqueline M. Speed, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Toni K. Choueiri, and Maxine Sun each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karim-Kos HE et al. Recent trends of cancer in Europe: a combined approach of incidence, survival and mortality for 17 cancer sites since the 1990s. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(10):1345–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ljungberg B et al. The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2011;60(4):615–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gandaglia G et al. Contemporary incidence and mortality rates of kidney cancer in the United States. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(7-8):247–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Motzer RJ et al. Kidney Cancer, Version 3.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13(2):151-–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sun M et al. Management of localized kidney cancer: calculating cancer-specific mortality and competing risks of death for surgery and nonsurgical management. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):235–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larcher A et al. Population-based assessment of cancer-specific mortality after local tumour ablation or observation for kidney cancer: a competing risks analysis. BJU Int. 2016;118(4):541–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janzen NK et al. Surveillance after radical or partial nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma and management of recurrent disease. Urol Clin N Am. 2003;30(4):843–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Lane BR, Campbell SC, Gill IS. 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Uro. 2013;190(1):44–9. One of the most contemporary large studies that analyzes recurrence outcomes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crispen PL et al. Outcomes following partial nephrectomy by tumor size. J Urol. 2008;180(5):1912–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klatte T et al. Tumor size does not predict risk of metastatic disease or prognosis of small renal cell carcinomas. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1719–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adamy A et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with recurrence 5 years after nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2011;185(2):433–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eggener SE et al. Renal cell carcinoma recurrence after nephrectomy for localized disease: predicting survival from time of recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(19):3101–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cindolo L et al. Comparison of predictive accuracy of four prognostic models for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy: a multicenter European study. Cancer. 2005;104(7):1362–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sorbellini M et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence for patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2005;173(1):48–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lam JS et al. Postoperative surveillance protocol for patients with localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma based on a validated prognostic nomogram and risk group stratification system. J Urol. 2005;174(2):466–72. discussion 472; quiz 801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hafez K, Novick A, Campbell SC. Patterns of Tumor Recurrence and Guidelines for Followup after Nephron Sparing Surgery for Sporadic Renal Cell Carcinoma. J Urol. 1997;157:2067–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levy D et al. Stage specific guidelines for surveillance after radical nephrectomy for local renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1998;159:1163–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Forbes CM, et al. Disease progression and kidney function after partial vs. radical nephrectomy for T1 renal cancer Urol Oncol, 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang W et al. Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:735–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fergany A, Hafez K, Novick A. Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol. 2000;163:442–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Becker F et al. Excellent long-term cancer control with elective nephron-sparing surgery for selected renal cell carcinomas measuring more than 4 cm. Eur Urol. 2006;49(6):1058–63. discussion 1063-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leibovich BC et al. Nephron sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome similar to radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2004;171(3):1066–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Banegas MP et al. Toward greater adoption of minimally invasive and nephron-sparing surgical techniques for renal cell cancer in the United States. Urol Oncol. 2016;34(10):433 e9–433 e17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berger A et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: oncological outcomes at 10 years or more. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2172–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    MacLennan S et al. Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):972–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Andrade HS et al. Five-year oncologic outcomes after transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1149–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Campbell SC et al. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1271–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pierorazio PM, et al. Management of Renal Masses and Localized Renal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2016.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mason RJ et al. Growth kinetics of renal masses: analysis of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):863–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smaldone MC et al. Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Cancer. 2012;118(4):997–1006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cindolo L et al. A preoperative clinical prognostic model for non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2003;92:901–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yaycioglu O et al. Prognostic assessment of nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma: a clinically based model. Urology. 2001;58(2):141–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kattan M et al. A postoperative predictive nomogram for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2001;166:63–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lindblad P. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Scand J Surg. 2004;93(2):88–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zisman A et al. Mathematical model to predict individual survival for patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1368–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dall’Oglio MF et al. Microvascular tumour invasion in renal cell carcinoma: the most important prognostic factor. BJU Int. 2007;100(3):552–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huang H et al. Microvascular invasion as a prognostic indicator in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(7):10779–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peralta-Venturina MD et al. Sarcomatoid differentiation in renal cell carcinoma: a study of 101 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(3):275–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Terrone C et al. Prognostic value of the involvement of the urinary collecting system in renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2004;46(4):472–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Palapattu GS et al. Collecting system invasion in renal cell carcinoma: impact on prognosis and future staging strategies. J Urol. 2003;170(3):768–72. discussion 772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Uzzo R et al. Renal cell carcinoma invading the urinary collecting system: implications for staging. J Urol. 2002;167:2392–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chen L et al. Prognostic role of urinary collecting system invasion in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21325.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hoffmann NE et al. External validation of IMP3 expression as an independent prognostic marker for metastatic progression and death for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2008;112(7):1471–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hakimi AA et al. Validation and genomic interrogation of the MET variant rs11762213 as a predictor of adverse outcomes in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2016;122(3):402–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rini B et al. A 16-gene assay to predict recurrence after surgery in localised renal cell carcinoma: development and validation studies. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:676–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Karakiewicz PI et al. C-reactive protein is an informative predictor of renal cell carcinoma-specific mortality: a European study of 313 patients. Cancer. 2007;110(6):1241–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Parker AS et al. Development and evaluation of BioScore: a biomarker panel to enhance prognostic algorithms for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2009;115(10):2092–103.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Klatte T et al. Molecular signatures of localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma to predict disease-free survival after nephrectomy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(3):894–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Joseph RW et al. Loss of BAP1 protein expression is an independent marker of poor prognosis in patients with low-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2014;120(7):1059–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Joseph RW et al. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes identified by BAP1 and PBRM1 Expression. J Urol. 2016;195(1):180–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fan Y et al. Prognostic significance of hypoxia-inducible factor expression in renal cell carcinoma: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(38), e1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Klatte T et al. The chemokine receptor CXCR3 is an independent prognostic factor in patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2008;179(1):61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zigeuner R et al. Value of p53 as a prognostic marker in histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma: a systematic analysis of primary and metastatic tumor tissue. Urology. 2004;63(4):651–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hofmockel G et al. Expression of p53 and bcl-2 in primary locally confined renal cell carcinomas: no evidence for prognostic significance. Anticancer Res. 1996;16(6B):3807–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ljungberg B et al. p53 expression in correlation to clinical outcomes in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2001;35(1):15–20Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lam JS et al. Clinicopathologic and molecular correlations of necrosis in the primary tumor of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;103(12):2517–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Frank I et al. 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(6):2395–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Leibovich BC et al. Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer. 2003;97(7):1663–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gogus C et al. Significance of thrombocytosis for determining prognosis in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2004;63(3):447–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gu L et al. The association of platelet count with clinicopathological significance and prognosis in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(5), e0125538.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hu Q et al. The prognostic value of C-reactive protein in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(1):50. e1-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kang HW et al. Surgical margin does not influence recurrence rate in pT1 clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial nephrectomy: a multicenter study. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114(1):70–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shah PH et al. Positive surgical margins increase risk of recurrence after partial nephrectomy for high risk renal tumors. J Urol. 2016;196(2):327–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zisman A et al. Improved prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an integrated staging system. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(6):1649–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Karakiewicz PI et al. Multi-institutional validation of a new renal cancer-specific survival nomogram. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(11):1316–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Parker, W.P., et al., Application of the Stage, Size, Grade, and Necrosis (SSIGN) Score for Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma in Contemporary Patients. Eur Urol, 2016.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ngo TC, Wood CG, Karam JA. Biomarkers of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(3):243–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nogueira M, Kim HL. Molecular markers for predicting prognosis of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2008;26(2):113–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Crispen PL et al. Predicting disease progression after nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma: the utility of prognostic models and molecular biomarkers. Cancer. 2008;113(3):450–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lam JS et al. Prognostic factors and selection for clinical studies of patients with kidney cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008;65(3):235–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pei X et al. Enhanced IMP3 expression activates NF-small ka, CyrillicB pathway and promotes renal cell carcinoma progression. PLoS One. 2015;10(4), e0124338.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gibney GT et al. c-Met is a prognostic marker and potential therapeutic target in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(2):343–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Slaby O et al. Identification of MicroRNAs associated with early relapse after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma patients. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2012;51(7):707–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gu L et al. MicroRNAs as prognostic molecular signatures in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2015;6(32):32545–60.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Thiry A et al. Targeting tumor-associated carbonic anhydrase IX in cancer therapy. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2006;27(11):566–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Zhao Z et al. Prognostic value of carbonic anhydrase IX immunohistochemical expression in renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of the literature. PLoS One. 2014;9(11), e114096.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kavolius JP et al. Resection of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(6):2261–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Alt AL et al. Survival after complete surgical resection of multiple metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2011;117(13):2873–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Dabestani S et al. Local treatments for metastases of renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e549–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Zhang Y et al. Sorafenib neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of high risk renal cell carcinoma. PLoS One. 2015;10(2), e0115896.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jonasch E et al. Phase II presurgical feasibility study of bevacizumab in untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(25):4076–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Harshman LC et al. Surgical outcomes and complications associated with presurgical tyrosine kinase inhibition for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Urol Oncol. 2013;31(3):379–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    •• Ravaud, A., et al., Adjuvant Sunitinib in High-Risk Renal-Cell Carcinoma after Nephrectomy. N Engl J Med, 2016. This article highlights a potential promising new treatment strategy for patients with patients at high risk of renal cell recurrence.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Donat SM et al. Follow-up for clinically localized renal neoplasms: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):407–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ljungberg B et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):913–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sohn, W., et al., An Empiric Evaluation of the Effect of Variation in Intensity of Follow-Up for Surgically Treated Renal Neoplasms on Cancer Specific Survival. J Urol, 2016.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Stewart SB et al. Evaluation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Urological Association renal cell carcinoma surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(36):4059–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Lobo JM et al. Comparison of Renal Cell Carcinoma Surveillance Guidelines: competing trade-offs. J Urol. 2016;195(6):1664–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    • Stewart-Merrill SB et al. Oncologic surveillance after surgical resection for renal cell carcinoma: a novel risk-based approach. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(35):p. 4151–7. This article presents an individualized risk-based approach to surveillance that may improve both detection of recurrence and increase cost-effectiveness of screening.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline M. Speed
    • 1
  • Quoc-Dien Trinh
    • 1
  • Toni K. Choueiri
    • 2
  • Maxine Sun
    • 1
  1. 1.Brigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations