medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2011, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2011; 71 (5)

Renal cell cancer staging: history, development, and present perspectives

Santana-Ríos Z, Fulda-Graue S, Pérez-Becerra R, Urdiales-Ortíz A, Merayo-Chalico C, Hernández-Castellanos V, Saavedra-Briones D, Sánchez-Turati G, Fernández-Noyola G, Ahumada-Tamayo S, Martínez Á, Camacho-Castro A, Muñoz-Ibarra E, García-Salcido F, Cantellano-Orozco M, Morales-Montor G, Pacheco-Gahbler C

Language: Spanish
References: 36
Page: 296-302
PDF size: 311.95 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The Tumor, (Regional) Lymph Nodes, and Distant Metastasis (TNM) system is a staging method based on studies with high levels of evidence. The first staging of renal cell cancer was carried out in 1958 and was based on anatomical characteristics and dissemination patterns. The first TNM system was published in 1974. Studies of renal cell cancer natural history have brought about advances enabling its classification. TNM revisions in 1997 and 2002 presented relevant changes in tumor size and vascular involvement. However, in the latest revision by the American Joint Committee on Cancer in 2010 there were new changes in regard to localized disease, vascular involvement, and thrombus level. Classification regarding the adrenal gland was modified and lymph node disease was simplified.
Objective: To present the historical development of the TNM system as well as its current classification in regard to renal cell cancer, along with studies supporting the new classification.
Methods: Publications referring to historical background and development of renal cancer cell staging were reviewed, as well as new studies supporting and proposing the use of the new TNM classification published by the American Joint Committee on Cancer in its 2010 seventh edition.
Discussion: This analysis shows the classification developments in relation to renal cell cancer behavior, as well as the changes that have been made up to the present date.
Conclusions: It is important to be familiar with the changes in the new TNM classification published by the American Joint Committee on Cancer in 2010, as well as with their development, and with the studies that support these changes, for the purpose of staging renal cell cancer and providing patient follow-up.


REFERENCES

  1. Flocks, Kadesky. Malignant neoplasms of the kidney; an analysis of 353 patients followed five years or more. J J Urol 1958;79:196-201.

  2. Petkovic SD. An anatomical classification of renal tumors in the adult as a basis for prognosis. J Urol 1959;81:618-23.

  3. Robson C. Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. 1963;89:37-42.

  4. Robson Churchill. The results of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1969;101:297-301.

  5. Harmen E. TNM classification of malignant tumours (Union Internationale Contre le Cancer, Geneva, Switzerland; 1978.

  6. P Hermanek, LH Sobin. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 4th ed. Springer, Berlin, Germany; 1987.

  7. P Hermanek, DE Henson, RV Hutter, LH Sobin. TNM supplement. A commentary on uniform use. Springer, Berlin, Germany; 1993.

  8. LH Sobin, CL Wittekind. TNM classification of malignant tumours 5th ed. Wiley-Liss, New York, NY, 1997.

  9. Gettman MT, Blute B, et al. Pathologic staging of renal cell carcinoma: significance of tumor classification with the 1997 TNM staging system. Cancer 2001;91:354-61.

  10. Zisman A, Pantuck A, et al. Reevaluation of the 1997 TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: T1 and T2 cutoff point at 4.5 rather than 7 cm better correlates with clinical outcome. J Urol 2001;166:54-8.

  11. Ficarra V, Schips, et al. Multiinstitutional European validation of the 2002 TNM staging system in conventional and papillary localized renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2005;104:968-74.

  12. Patard J, Shvarts O, et al. Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based on an international multicenter experience. J Urol 2004;171:2181-5.

  13. Leibovich C, Blute M, et al. Nephron sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome similar to radical nephrectomy. J Urol 2004;171:1066-70.

  14. Ficarra V, Prayer-Galetti, et al. Incidental detection beyond pathological factors as prognostic predictor of renal cell carcinoma. 2003;43:663-9.

  15. Thompson H, Bradley L, et al. Should direct ipsilateral adrenal invasion from renal cell carcinoma be classified as pT3a? J Urol 2005;173:918-21.

  16. Frank I, Blute ML, Leibovich BC, et al. pT2 classification for renal cell carcinoma. Can its accuracy be improved? J Urol 2005;173:380-4.

  17. Jung SJ. Reappraisal of T3N0/NxM0 renal cell carcinoma: significance of extent of fat invasion, renal vein invasion, and adrenal invasion. Hum Pathol 2008;39:1689-94.

  18. Yoo C, Song C. Prognostic significance of perinephric fat infiltration and tumor size in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2008;180:486-91.

  19. Nese N, Gladell P, Paner, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: Assessment of key pathologic prognostic parameters and patient characteristics in 47909 cases using the national cancer data base. Ann Diagn Pathol 2009;13:1-8.

  20. Lahm JS, Oleg S, et al. Renal cell carcinoma 2005: New frontiers in staging, prognostication and targeted molecular therapy. 2005;173:1853-62.

  21. Thompson RH, Leibovich B, Cheville JC, et al. Is renal sinus fat invasion the same as perinephric fat invasion for pT3a renal cell carcinoma? J Urol 2005;174:1218-21.

  22. Moinzadeh A, Libertino J. Prognostic significance of tumor thrombus level in patients with renal cell carcinoma and venous tumor thrombus extension. Is all T3b the same?. J Urol 2004;171:598-601.

  23. American Joint Comitee on Cancer (AJCC), 6th Ed 2002. Cap. 43 Kidney.

  24. American Joint Comitee on Cancer (AJCC), 7th Ed 2010. Cap 43 Kidney: 479-486.

  25. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Practice Guidelines in Oncology 2010.

  26. Nguyen C, Campbell SC, et al. Staging of renal cell carcinoma: Past, present and future. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2006;5:190-7.

  27. Leibovich B, Cheville J, et al. Cancer specific survival for patients with pt3 renal cell carcinoma – Can the 2002 primary tumor classification be improved? J Urol 2005;173:716-9.

  28. Lam JS, Patard JJ, et al. Prognostic significance of T3a renal cell carcinoma with adrenal gland involvement: An international multicenter experience. Eur Urol 2007;52:155-62.

  29. Phillips CK, Taneja SS, et al. The role of lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol 2004;22:214-23.

  30. Ficarra V, Galfano A, Mancini M, et al. TNM staging system for renalcell carcinoma: current status and future perspectives. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:554-8.

  31. Hafez AF Fergany. Nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and TNM staging. J Urol 1999;162:1930-1933.

  32. Roberts WW, SB Bhayani. Pathological stage does not alter the prognosis for renal lesions determined to be stage T1 by computerized tomography. J Urol 2005;173:713-5.

  33. Kim HL, A Zisman. Prognostic significance of venous thrombus in renal cell carcinoma. Are renal vein and inferior vena cava involvement different? J Urol 2004;171:588-91.

  34. Karakiewicz PI, Trinh PN, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with nodal metastases in the absence of distant metastatic disease: prognostic indicators of disease-specific survival. Eur Urol 2007;51:1616-24.

  35. Bedke JM, Pritsch S Buse, et al. Prognostic stratification of localized renal cell carcinoma by tumor size. J Urol 2008;180:62-7.

  36. JHM Blo, H. van Poppel, JM Maréchal, et al. Radical nephrectomy with and without lymph-node dissection: final results of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) randomized phase 3 trial 30881. Eur Urol 2009;55:28-34.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com