MDCT evaluation of the Fuhrman grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

LIU Ying-ying1; ZHANG Xue-ning1; HOU Wen-jing2

Journal of China Clinic Medical Imaging ›› 2017, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (7) : 507-511.

LIU Ying-ying1, ZHANG Xue-ning1, HOU Wen-jing2

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the relationship between MDCT findings and Fuhrman grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma(ccRCC). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of MDCT manifestations of 113 patients with pathologically confirmed ccRCC, including 8 cases of Fuhrman grade Ⅰ, 60 cases of Fuhrman grade Ⅱ, 30 cases of Fuhrman grade Ⅲ and 15 cases of Fuhrman grade Ⅳ. The tumor characteristics, including tumor size, cystic versus solid, calcification, heterogeneity of lesions, percentage of non-enhancing necrotic ratio and growth pattern were noted independently by two radiologists, and statistical analysis was performed. Results: Fourteen of fifteen(93.3%) cystic ccRCC were low grade(Fuhrman grades Ⅰ~Ⅱ). In predominantly solid ccRCC, twenty of twenty-seven(74%) infiltrative ccRCC were high grade(Fuhrman grades Ⅲ~Ⅳ). Univariate analysis showed that larger tumor size(critical value 4 cm) had higher grade(χ2=11.441, P<0.001); calcification and necrotic ratio ≥0.6 were significantly more common in high grade ccRCC than in low grade ccRCC(χ2=29.007, P<0.001; χ2=18.454, P=0.030). Multivariate analysis showed tumor size, infiltrative growth and necrotic ratio ≥0.6 were Fuhrman grades Ⅲ~Ⅳ of three independent predictors(OR: 0.122, P=0.002; OR: 13.234, P=0.002; OR: 12.891, P=0.031). Conclusion: Multi-detector CT shows great application value in distinguishing Fuhrman grading system of ccRCC. Cystic ccRCC tends to have low grade. Infiltrative growth, larger tumor size and necrotic ratio ≥0.6 may increase the likelihood of high grade predominantly solid ccRCC.

Key words

Kidney neoplasms / Tomography, spiral computed

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

LIU Ying-ying1, ZHANG Xue-ning1, HOU Wen-jing2. MDCT evaluation of the Fuhrman grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma[J]. Journal of China Clinic Medical Imaging. 2017, 28(7): 507-511

References

[1]Smith ZL, Pietzak EJ, Meise CK, et al. Simplification of the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma[J]. Can J Urol, 2015, 22(6): 8069-8073.
[2]Sukov WR, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, et al. Clinical and pathological features associated with prognosis in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma[J]. J Urol, 2011, 187(1): 54-59.
[3]Qayyum T, Mcardle P, Orange C, et al. Reclassification of the Fuhrman grading system in renal cell carcinoma—does it make a difference?[J]. Springerplus, 2013, 2(1): 378-381.
[4]Lang H, Lindner V, Fromont MD, et al. Multicenter determination of optimal interobserver agreement using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma[J]. Cancer, 2005, 103(3): 625-629.
[5]Hebert-Alberto V, Delaney HG, Delappe EM, et al. Multiphasic contrast-enhanced MRI: single-slice versus volumetric quantification of tumor enhancement for the assessment of renal clear-cell carcinoma Fuhrman grade[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2013, 37(5): 1160-1167.
[6]Goyal A, Sharma R, Bhalla AS, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in renal cell carcinoma: a surrogate marker for predicting nuclear grade and histological subtype[J]. Acta Radiologica, 2012, 53(3): 349-358.
[7]You D, Shim M, Jeong IG, et al. Multilocular cystic renal cell carcinoma: clinicopathological features and preoperative prediction using multiphase computed tomography[J]. Bju International, 2011, 108(9): 1444-1449.
[8]Han K, Janzen NK, Mcwhorter VC. Cystic renal cell carcinoma: biology and clinical behavior[J]. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Invest, 2004, 22(5): 410-414.
[9]Graumann O, Osther SS, Karstoft J, et al. Bosniak classification system: a prospective comparison of CT, contrast-enhanced US, and MR for categorizing complex renal cystic masses[J]. Acta Radiologica, 2015, 145(3): 291-294.
[10]Ishigami K, Leite LV, Pakalniskis MG, et al. Tumor grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma assessed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography[J]. Springerplus, 2014, 3(1): 1-7.
[11]Leibovich BC, Lohse CM, Crispen PL, et al. Histological subtype is an independent predictor of outcome for patients with renal cell carcinoma[J]. J Urology, 2010, 183(4): 1309-1315.
[12]Keegan KA, Schupp CW, Chamie K, et al. Histopathology of surgically treated renal cell carcinoma: survival differences by subtype and stage[J]. J Urol, 2012, 188(2): 391-397.
[13]Erdo F, Demirel A, Polat O. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma[J]. Int J Clin Pract, 2004, 58(4): 333-336.
[14]Moura RN, Lopes RI, Srougi M, et al. Initial experience with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of renal masses: indications, applications and limitations[J]. Arq De Gastroenterol, 2014, 51(4): 337-340.
[15]Wang R, Wolf-Js JW, Higgins E, et al. Accuracy of percutaneous core biopsy in management of small renal masses[J]. Urology, 2009, 73(3): 586-590.
[16]Alessandro V, Kamal M, Antonio F, et al. Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience[J]. J Urol, 2008, 180(6): 2333-2337.
[17]Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, et al. EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: 2014 Update[J]. Eur Urol, 2015, 67(5): 913-924.
[18]Maclennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, et al. Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer[J]. Eur Urol, 2012, 61(5): 972-993.
[19]Borghesi M, Brunocilla E, Volpe A, et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized renal tumors: An updated review of current indications and clinical outcomes[J]. Intern J Urol, 2015, 22(5): 432-438.
[20]Zargar H, Atwell TD, Cadeddu JA, et al. Cryoablation for small renal masses: selection criteria, complications, and functional and oncologic results[J]. Eur Urol, 2015, 2(1): 116-128.
[21]El Dib R, Touma NJ, Kapoor A. Cryoablation vs radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of case series studies[J]. Bju International, 2012, 110(4): 510-516.
[22]Zhang C, Li X, Hao H, et al. The correlation between size of renal cell carcinoma and its histopathological characteristics: a single center study of 1 867 renal cell carcinoma cases[J]. Bju International, 2012, 110(11b): E481-E485.
[23]Ishigami K, Leite LV, Pakalniskis MG, et al. Tumor grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma assessed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography[J]. Springerplus, 2014, 3(1): 1-7.
[24]Thompson RH, Kurta JM, Kaag M, et al. Tumor size is associated with malignant potential in renal cell carcinoma cases[J]. J Urol, 2009, 181(5): 2033-2036.
[25]Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HC, et al. Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameter[J]. J Urol, 2006, 176(3): 896-899.
[26]Yamada T, Endo M, Tsuboi M, et al. Differentiation of pathologic subtypes of papillary renal cell carcinoma on CT[J]. Am J Roentgenol, 2008, 191(191): 1559-1563.
[27]Hu Y, Lu GM, Li K, et al. Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: imaging observations of a rare tumor[J]. Oncol Letters, 2014, 7(2): 519-524.
[28]Khor LY, Dhakal HP, Jia X, et al. Tumor necrosis adds prognostically significant information to grade in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a study of 842 consecutive cases from a single institution[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2016, 40(9): 1224-1231.
[29]Xiong C, Liu H, Chen Z, et al. Prognostic role of survivin in renal cell carcinoma: a system review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Int Med, 2016, 33(2): 102-107.
[30]Zhang YH, Xun W, Jin Z, et al. Low enhancement on multiphase contrast-enhanced CT images: an independent predictor of the presence of high tumor grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma[J]. Am J Roentgenol, 2014, 203(3): W295-300.
[31]Umbreit EC, Shimko MS, Childs MA, et al. Metastatic potential of a renal mass according to original tumor size at presentation[J]. Bju International, 2012, 109(2): 190-194.