验证新的分级方案和改进的Leibovich风险组为嫌色肾细胞癌。

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":"验证新的分级方案和改进的Leibovich风险组为嫌色肾细胞癌。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:传统的分级系统已被证明不足以根据复发风险对chRCC患者进行分层。最近,提出了几种新的分级方案,包括三层、两层和四层系统,但其预后价值仍然存在争议,缺乏外部验证。材料和方法:我们纳入了528例病理证实的chRCC(嫌色肾细胞癌)患者,这些患者来自多个医疗机构和癌症基因组图谱-肾嫌色队列。三位经验丰富的病理学家根据三种新的评分方案独立地重新评估了切片。生存结果,包括疾病特异性生存(DSS)、无复发生存(RFS),采用Kaplan-Meier方法和Cox比例风险回归模型进行分析。采用Harrell’s c指数比较原始和调整后的莱博维奇危险组的预后价值。结论:我们的研究验证了最近开发的chRCC分级系统对预后的重要意义。CTG1和CTG2在三级系统中观察到的生存差异可能归因于凝固性坏死的不同百分比。通过将坏死和肿瘤血栓纳入Leibovich风险组,我们增强了模型区分患者的能力,并提高了其预测性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of novel grading schemes and refinement of the Leibovich risk groups for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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