These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Architectural Patterns are a Relevant Morphologic Grading System for Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Prognosis Assessment: Comparisons With WHO/ISUP Grade and Integrated Staging Systems.
    Author: Verine J, Colin D, Nheb M, Prapotnich D, Ploussard G, Cathelineau X, Desgrandchamps F, Mongiat-Artus P, Feugeas JP.
    Journal: Am J Surg Pathol; 2018 Apr; 42(4):423-441. PubMed ID: 29356723.
    Abstract:
    We developed and validated an architecture-based grading for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in an observational retrospective cohort study including 506 tumors (principal cohort, n=254; validation cohort, n=252). Study endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Relationships with outcome were analyzed using Harrell concordance index, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve, area under curve, and Cox regression model. An architecture-based grading was devised on positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for DFS at 50 months as follows: grade 1 (LR+<0.8), cystic, compact, acinar, clear cell papillary RCC-like, and/or regressive patterns; grade 2 (1.2≤LR+<5), large nest, alveolar, papillary, chromophobe/oncocytic cell-like, eosinophilic hyaline globule, and/or intratumoral inflammatory reaction patterns; grade 3 (5≤LR+<10), rhabdoid, tumor giant cell, enlarged vascular space, and/or hereditary leiomyomatosis renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC)-like patterns; grade 4 (LR+≥10), sarcomatoid, infiltrative growth patterns, and lymphatic invasion. In the principal cohort, 3-tier (grades 1-2, 3, and 4) and 4-tier architectural scores outperformed World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology, and World Health Organization/ International Society of Urological Pathology+necrosis gradings for DFS and CSS, and constituted an independent predictor for DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=5.91; P<6.7E-10) and CSS (HR=4.49; P=2.2E-03), retained in the localized (pT1-3N0M0) ccRCC subgroup (HR=6.10; P=1.3E-07 for DFS, and HR=20.09; P=9.4E-05 for CSS). On comparing with integrated staging systems, architectural grade with 1 morphologic datum remained an independent predictor of CSS, as did University of California Los Angeles Integrated Staging System and SSIGN, and was associated with the highest HR (HR=2.60; P=9.1E-04 in all patients; HR=4.38; P=2.0E-05 in the localized ccRCC subgroup). Architecture-based score for ccRCC outperforms all other morphologic grading systems and constitutes an independent predictor for DFS and CSS. As the predictive values of 3-tier and 4-tier architecture-based scores were similar throughout the study, we proposed to keep the simplified version as the final score, and to define 3 risk groups as follows: low risk (grades 1 to 2), intermediate risk (grade 3), and high risk (grade 4).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]