Validation of novel grading schemes and refinement of the Leibovich risk groups for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Haiyue Lin, Caiying Wang, Yun Zhao, Run Wang, Wei Xi, Ying Xiong, Li Xiao, Yi Liu, Shaoting Zhang, Chenchen Dai
{"title":"Validation of novel grading schemes and refinement of the Leibovich risk groups for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.","authors":"Haiyue Lin, Caiying Wang, Yun Zhao, Run Wang, Wei Xi, Ying Xiong, Li Xiao, Yi Liu, Shaoting Zhang, Chenchen Dai","doi":"10.1007/s00345-024-05394-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional grading systems have proven inadequate in stratifying chRCC patients based on recurrence risk. Recently, several novel grading schemes, including three-tiered, two-tiered, and four-tiered systems, have been proposed, but their prognostic value remains controversial and lacks external validation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We included 528 patients with pathologically proven chRCC (chromophobe renal cell carcinoma) from multiple medical institutions and the Cancer Genome Atlas-Kidney Chromophobe cohort. Three experienced pathologists independently reassessed the slides based on the three novel grading schemes. Survival outcomes, including disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression models. The prognostic value of the original and adjusted Leibovich risk groups was compared using Harrell's C-index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All grading systems demonstrated significant survival differences among their respective groups (p < 0.001 for all). However, within the four-tiered system, no significant survival disparity was observed between grade 1 and grade 2 tumors (GTG2 without necrosis) (p = 0.619 for DSS). When patients with necrosis were excluded, no survival difference was detected between CTG1 and CTG2 tumors in the three-tiered system (p = 0.870 for DSS), challenging the prognostic utility of distinguishing between these two grades. The adjusted Leibovich risk stratification (C-index = 0.840 for DSS), incorporating necrosis and tumor thrombus, demonstrated superior prognostic value compared to the original model (C-index = 0.762 for DSS), with more pronounced survival distinctions and improved predictive performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study validates the prognostic significance of recently developed grading systems for chRCC. The observed survival difference between CTG1 and CTG2 in the three-tiered system may be attributed to varying percentages of coagulative necrosis. By integrating necrosis and tumor thrombus into the Leibovich risk groups, we enhanced the model's ability to distinguish between patients and improved its predictive performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"43 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05394-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traditional grading systems have proven inadequate in stratifying chRCC patients based on recurrence risk. Recently, several novel grading schemes, including three-tiered, two-tiered, and four-tiered systems, have been proposed, but their prognostic value remains controversial and lacks external validation.

Materials and methods: We included 528 patients with pathologically proven chRCC (chromophobe renal cell carcinoma) from multiple medical institutions and the Cancer Genome Atlas-Kidney Chromophobe cohort. Three experienced pathologists independently reassessed the slides based on the three novel grading schemes. Survival outcomes, including disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression models. The prognostic value of the original and adjusted Leibovich risk groups was compared using Harrell's C-index.

Results: All grading systems demonstrated significant survival differences among their respective groups (p < 0.001 for all). However, within the four-tiered system, no significant survival disparity was observed between grade 1 and grade 2 tumors (GTG2 without necrosis) (p = 0.619 for DSS). When patients with necrosis were excluded, no survival difference was detected between CTG1 and CTG2 tumors in the three-tiered system (p = 0.870 for DSS), challenging the prognostic utility of distinguishing between these two grades. The adjusted Leibovich risk stratification (C-index = 0.840 for DSS), incorporating necrosis and tumor thrombus, demonstrated superior prognostic value compared to the original model (C-index = 0.762 for DSS), with more pronounced survival distinctions and improved predictive performance.

Conclusion: Our study validates the prognostic significance of recently developed grading systems for chRCC. The observed survival difference between CTG1 and CTG2 in the three-tiered system may be attributed to varying percentages of coagulative necrosis. By integrating necrosis and tumor thrombus into the Leibovich risk groups, we enhanced the model's ability to distinguish between patients and improved its predictive performance.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信