Prognostic Relevance of Cytologic Grading in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
In 1932 Hand and Broders stressed the importance in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of tumor grading in predicting the course of the disease (1) and since then many authors have agreed with that point of view. This observation has induced a previous retrospective study at our department, which included 121 patients who had been treated by radical nephrectomy for RCC (2). At the time of diagnosis 52 patients had metastases. Of these 42 were operated on. In this study we have investigated the survival of these 42 patients in accordance with the histologic tumor grade. The Erlangen histological grading system, proposed by Hermanek and coworkers in 1976 (3), is based on the criteria shown in Table 1. Comparing these different histologic grades with regard to prognosis (fig. 1), we find that the one-year survival rate is significantly worse in G3 tumors than in G2. The difference between G1 and G2 tumors is not statistically significant, possibly due to the small number of patients with G1 lesions.
KeywordsRenal Cell Carcinoma Tumor Grade Radical Nephrectomy Prognostic Relevance Malignancy Grade
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.J.R. Hand and A.C. Broders, Carcinoma of the Kidney: Degree of Malignancy in Relation to Factors Bearing on Prognosis, J. Urol. 28:199 (1932).Google Scholar
- 2.W. Pauer, G. Mikuz and G. Jakse, Ist Die Nephrektomie Beim Metastasierenden Nierenzellkarzinom sinnvoll? Akt. Urol. in press (1981).Google Scholar
- 6.F. Hofstädter and P. Ehlich, DNS-Feulgenzytophotometrie bei Nierenparenchymkarzinomen Verschiedenen Malignitätsgrades, Verh. Dtsch. Ges. Path. 62:375 (1978).Google Scholar