4.4 Article

Trends of stage, grade, histology and tumour necrosis in renal cell carcinoma in a European centre surgical series from 1984 to 2010

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 8, Pages 721-724

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200797

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To analyse renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stage, grade, histology and necrosis migration in a large European centre series over the last 27 years. Methods The pathology reports of 2739 consecutive patients with RCC who underwent nephrectomy from 1984 to 2010 at the institution of the authors were systematically re-evaluated. Patients were pooled into five time groups according to the date of surgery: group 1: 1984-1989, group 2: 1990-1994, group 3: 1995-1999, group 4: 2000-2004 and group 5: 2005-2010, respectively. Changes in pT categories according to WHO 2010 classification, tumour grade, histological subtype and presence of tumour necrosis (TN) were evaluated. Results Small pT1a tumours were found in 62/485 (12.8%) and 312/639 (48.8%) patients in groups 1 and 5, respectively (p<0.001). Advanced tumour stages (pT3a-4) were found in 306/485 (63.1%) and 171/639 (26.8%) patients in groups 1 and 5, respectively (p<0.001). The number of grade 3/4 tumours increased from 62/485 (12.7%) and 130/639 (20.3%) in groups 1 and 5, respectively, whereas the number of grade 1 tumours decreased over time (p<0.001). There has been a significant histological migration for the chromophobe subtype from 1.1% to 4.3% (p=0.002). The frequency of the presence TN decreased from 41.7% in group 1 to 32.7% in group 5 (p<0.001). Conclusions In contrast to data from Australia but similar to data from US cohorts, a statistically significant stage migration towards small RCCs was observed in this European cohort. Significant changes in tumour grade, histological subtype and TN were also observed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available