You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Epidemiology & Evaluation/Staging/Surveillance I (MP50)1 Apr 2020MP50-15 CHROMOPHOBE RENAL CELL CARCINOMA – EVIDENCE FOR A NEW GRADING SYSTEM Svetlana Avulova*, John C. Cheville, Christine Lohse, Matvey Tsivian, R. Houston Thompson, Bradley C. Leibovich, and Aaron M. Potretzke Svetlana Avulova*Svetlana Avulova* More articles by this author , John C. ChevilleJohn C. Cheville More articles by this author , Christine LohseChristine Lohse More articles by this author , Matvey TsivianMatvey Tsivian More articles by this author , R. Houston ThompsonR. Houston Thompson More articles by this author , Bradley C. LeibovichBradley C. Leibovich More articles by this author , and Aaron M. PotretzkeAaron M. Potretzke More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000912.015AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: There is currently no consensus on a grading system for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC), and currently the WHO recommends that chRCC is not graded. We sought to validate a previously reported 3-tiered grading system specific for chRCC and evaluate if coagulative tumor necrosis impacts its prognostic value. METHODS: A total of 266 patients were identified from an institutional registry who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for unilateral, sporadic, nonmetastatic, chRCC between 1970 and 2012. A urologic pathologist, blinded to patient outcome, reviewed pathologic features including multifocality, tumor size, 2018 pT and pN classifications, coagulative tumor necrosis, sarcomatoid differentiation, and chRCC grade. Distant metastases-free (DMF) and cancer-specific (CS) survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and associations with these outcomes were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of the 266 patients, 195 (75%), 52 (20%), and 19 (7%) were classified as chRCC grade 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Median follow up for survivors was 11.0 (IQR 7.9-15.9) years. Univariable associations with DMF and CS survival included the presence of symptoms, tumor size, the 2018 pT/N classifications, coagulative tumor necrosis, sarcomatoid differentiation, and chRCC grade (Table). Among the 244 patients with chRCC grade 1 and 2, the presence of coagulative tumor necrosis was significantly associated with DMF and CS survival only for chRCC grade 2 (HR 28.93 and 17.96, p<0.001). DMF and CS survival rates for a proposed 4-tiered grade are presented in the Figure. CONCLUSIONS: While a previously reported 3-tier grading system for chRCC has prognostic value, the inclusion of coagulative tumor necrosis further stratifies outcomes among chRCC grade 2 patients, suggesting the utility of a 4-tiered chRCC grading system. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e759-e759 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Svetlana Avulova* More articles by this author John C. Cheville More articles by this author Christine Lohse More articles by this author Matvey Tsivian More articles by this author R. Houston Thompson More articles by this author Bradley C. Leibovich More articles by this author Aaron M. Potretzke More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract