Grading Challenges and Prognostic Insights in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of 72 Patients
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Trpkov, K.; Hes, O.; Williamson, S.R.; Adeniran, A.J.; Agaimy, A.; Alaghehbandan, R.; Amin, M.B.; Argani, P.; Chen, Y.-B.; Cheng, L.; et al. New developments in existing WHO entities and evolving molecular concepts: The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) update on renal neoplasia. Mod. Pathol. 2021, 34, 1392–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moch, H.; Amin, M.B.; Berney, D.M.; Compérat, E.M.; Gill, A.J.; Hartmann, A.; Menon, S.; Raspollini, M.R.; Rubin, M.A.; Srigley, J.R.; et al. The 2022 World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs—Part A: Renal, Penile, and Testicular Tumours. Eur. Urol. 2022, 82, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davis, C.F.; Ricketts, C.J.; Wang, M.; Yang, L.; Cherniack, A.D.; Shen, H.; Buhay, C.; Kang, H.; Kim, S.C.; Fahey, C.C.; et al. The Somatic Genomic Landscape of Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma. Cancer Cell 2014, 26, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muglia, V.F.; Prando, A. Renal cell carcinoma: Histological classification and correlation with imaging findings*. Radiol. Bras. 2015, 48, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delahunt, B.; Cheville, J.C.; Martignoni, G.; Humphrey, P.A.; Magi-Galluzzi, C.; McKenney, J.; Egevad, L.; Algaba, F.; Moch, H.; Grignon, D.; et al. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grading System for Renal Cell Carcinoma and Other Prognostic Parameters. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2013, 37, 1490–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delahunt, B.; Sika-Paotonu, D.; Bethwaite, P.B.; McCredie, M.R.E.; Martignoni, G.; Eble, J.N.; William Jordan, T. Fuhrman grading is not appropriate for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2007, 31, 957–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stec, R.; Grala, B.; Maczewski, M.; Bodnar, L.; Szczylik, C.; Mączewski, M.; Bodnar, L.; Szczylik, C. Chromophobe renal cell cancer-review of the literature and potential methods of treating metastatic disease. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009, 28, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paner, G.P.; Amin, M.B.; Alvarado-Cabrero, I.; Young, A.N.; Stricker, H.J.; Moch, H.; Lyles, R.H. A novel tumor grading scheme for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: Prognostic utility and comparison with Fuhrman nuclear grade. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2010, 34, 1233–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ohashi, R.; Martignoni, G.; Hartmann, A.; Caliò, A.; Segala, D.; Stöhr, C.; Wach, S.; Erlmeier, F.; Weichert, W.; Autenrieth, M.; et al. Multi-institutional re-evaluation of prognostic factors in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: Proposal of a novel two-tiered grading scheme. Virchows Arch. 2020, 476, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheville, J.C.; Lohse, C.M.; Sukov, W.R.; Thompson, R.H.; Leibovich, B.C. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: The impact of tumor grade on outcome. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2012, 36, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Przybycin, C.G.; Cronin, A.M.; Darvishian, F.; Gopalan, A.; Al-Ahmadie, H.A.; Fine, S.W.; Chen, Y.-b.; Bernstein, M.; Russo, P.; Reuter, V.; et al. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: A clinicopathologic study of 203 tumors in 200 patients with primary resection at a single institution. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2011, 35, 962–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amin, M.B.; Paner, G.P.; Alvarado-Cabrero, I.; Young, A.N.; Stricker, H.J.; Lyles, R.H.; Moch, H. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: Histomorphologic characteristics and evaluation of conventional pathologic prognostic parameters in 145 cases. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2008, 32, 1822–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avulova, S.; Cheville, J.C.; Lohse, C.M.; Gupta, S.; Potretzke, T.A.; Tsivian, M.; Thompson, R.H.; Boorjian, S.A.; Leibovich, B.C.; Potretzke, A.M. Grading Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: Evidence for a Four-tiered Classification Incorporating Coagulative Tumor Necrosis. Eur. Urol. 2021, 79, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moch, H.; Ohashi, R. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: Current and controversial issues. Pathology 2021, 53, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasumi, Y.; Baba, M.; Ajima, R.; Hasumi, H.; Valera, V.A.; Klein, M.E.; Haines, D.C.; Merino, M.J.; Hong, S.-B.; Yamaguchi, T.P.; et al. Homozygous loss of BHD causes early embryonic lethality and kidney tumor development with activation of mTORC1 and mTORC2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 18722–18727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roldan-Romero, J.M.; Santos, M.; Lanillos, J.; Caleiras, E.; Anguera, G.; Maroto, P.; Garcia-Donas, J.; de Velasco, G.; Martinez-Montes, A.M.; Calsina, B.; et al. Molecular characterization of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma reveals mTOR pathway alterations in patients with poor outcome. Mod. Pathol. 2020, 33, 2580–2590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Papanikolaou, D.; Ioannidou, P.; Koukourikis, P.; Moysidis, K.; Meditskou, S.; Koutsoumparis, D.; Hatzimouratidis, K.; Hatzivassiliou, E. Systemic therapy for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Orig. Investig. 2020, 38, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massoumi, R. CYLD: A deubiquitination enzyme with multiple roles in cancer. Futur. Oncol. 2011, 7, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pseftogas, A.; Xanthopoulos, K.; Poutahidis, T.; Ainali, C.; Dafou, D.; Panteris, E.; Kern, J.G.; Varelas, X.; Hardas, A.; Gonidas, C.; et al. The Tumor Suppressor CYLD Inhibits Mammary Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition by the Coordinated Inhibition of YAP/TAZ and TGFβ Signaling. Cancers 2020, 12, 2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, S.-C. CYLD: A tumor suppressor deubiquitinase regulating NF-kappaB activation and diverse biological processes. Cell Death Differ. 2010, 17, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koutsoumparis, D.; Constantinou, E.; Papanikolaou, D.; Karatzas, D.; Bobos, M.; Hadweh, P.; Konstantinou, T.; Hatzivassiliou, E.G. Characterization of tumor suppressor CYLD expression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J. Biol. Res. 2022, 29, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macher-Goeppinger, S.; Bermejo, J.L.; Wagener, N.; Hohenfellner, M.; Haferkamp, A.; Schirmacher, P.; Roth, W. Expression and prognostic relevance of the death receptor CD95 (Fas/APO1) in renal cell carcinomas. Cancer Lett. 2011, 301, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Volpe, A.; Novara, G.; Antonelli, A.; Bertini, R.; Billia, M.; Carmignani, G.; Cunico, S.C.; Longo, N.; Martignoni, G.; Minervini, A.; et al. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Oncological outcomes and prognostic factors in a large multicentre series. BJU Int. 2012, 110, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casuscelli, J.; Becerra, M.F.; Seier, K.; Manley, B.J.; Benfante, N.; Redzematovic, A.; Stief, C.G.; Hsieh, J.J.; Tickoo, S.K.; Reuter, V.E.; et al. Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from a Large Single-Institution Series. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2019, 17, 373–379.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klatte, T.; Han, K.; Said, J.W.; Böhm, M.; Allhoff, E.P.; Kabbinavar, F.F.; Belldegrun, A.S.; Pantuck, A.J. Pathobiology and prognosis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Orig. Investig. 2008, 26, 604–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xie, Y.; Ma, X.; Li, H.; Gao, Y.; Gu, L.; Chen, L.; Zhang, X. Prognostic Value of Clinical and Pathological Features in Chinese Patients with Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A 10-Year Single-Center Study. J. Cancer 2017, 8, 3474–3479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmidt, L.S.; Linehan, W.M. Molecular genetics and clinical features of Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2015, 12, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maroto, P.; Anguera, G.; Roldan-Romero, J.M.; Apellániz-Ruiz, M.; Algaba, F.; Boonman, J.; Nellist, M.; Montero-Conde, C.; Cascon, A.; Robledo, M.; et al. Biallelic TSC2 Mutations in a Patient with Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Showing Extraordinary Response to Temsirolimus. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2018, 16, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roldan-Romero, J.M.; Beuselinck, B.; Santos, M.; Rodriguez-Moreno, J.F.; Lanillos, J.; Calsina, B.; Gutierrez, A.; Tang, K.; Lainez, N.; Puente, J.; et al. PTEN expression and mutations in TSC1, TSC2 and MTOR are associated with response to rapalogs in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Int. J. Cancer 2020, 146, 1435–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathis, B.; Lai, Y.; Qu, C.; Janicki, J.; Cui, T. CYLD-Mediated Signaling and Diseases. Curr. Drug Targets 2015, 16, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristic | Number (%) or Mean (±SD) |
---|---|
Total patients | 72 |
Follow-up duration | 44–222 months |
Followed for >5 years | 84% |
Followed for >10 years | 54% |
Male | 74% |
Age (years) | 60.3 (±15.1) |
Tumor size (mm) | 10–230 (62.6 ± 44.0) |
Radical nephrectomy | 69% |
Metastatic at operation | 3 (4%) |
Characteristic | Overall (n = 70) | Living (n = 55) | Death (n = 15) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Males | 52 (74%) | 40 (73%) | 12 (80%) | 0.8 |
Age (years) | 60.3 ± 15.1 | 58.3 ± 15.7 | 67.4 ± 10.2 | 0.014 |
Type of operation | 0.018 | |||
- Nephrectomy | 48 (69%) | 42 (76%) | 6 (40%) | |
- Partial nephrectomy | 22 (31%) | 13 (24%) | 9 (60%) | |
Greatest dimension (mm) | 62.6 ± 44.0 | 66.4 ± 46.7 | 49.1 ± 30.3 | 0.10 |
Follow-up duration (months) | 67.4 ± 71.1 | 60.3 ± 68.9 | 93.8 ± 75.0 | 0.13 |
Characteristic | Overall (n = 70) | Living (n = 55) | Death (n = 15) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Greatest dimension (mm) | 62.6 ± 44.0 | 66.4 ± 46.7 | 49.1 ± 30.3 | 0.10 |
T Stage | 0.6 | |||
- T1a | 29 (41%) | 22 (40%) | 7 (47%) | |
- T1b | 13 (19%) | 9 (16%) | 4 (27%) | |
- T2a | 6 (8.6%) | 6 (11%) | 0 (0%) | |
- T2b | 9 (13%) | 8 (15%) | 1 (6.7%) | |
- T3a | 12 (17%) | 9 (16%) | 3 (20%) | |
- T3b | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | |
Surgical margins | 0.12 | |||
- No data | 2 (2.9%) | 2 (3.6%) | 0 (0%) | |
- Negative | 65 (93%) | 52 (95%) | 13 (87%) | |
- Positive | 3 (4.3%) | 1 (1.8%) | 2 (13%) | |
- 1 | 40 (57%) | 33 (60%) | 7 (47%) | |
- 2 | 23 (33%) | 18 (33%) | 5 (33%) | |
- 3 | 7 (10%) | 4 (7.3%) | 3 (20%) | |
Grade (Avulova) | 0.5 | |||
- 1 | 40 (57%) | 33 (60%) | 7 (47%) | |
- 2 | 15 (21%) | 12 (22%) | 3 (20%) | |
- 3 | 8 (11%) | 6 (11%) | 2 (13%) | |
- 4 | 7 (10%) | 4 (7.3%) | 3 (20%) | |
Necrosis | 20 (29%) | 15 (27%) | 5 (33%) | 0.9 |
Sarcomatoid change | 3 (4.3%) | 1 (1.8%) | 2 (13%) | 0.2 |
Lymphovascular invasion | 5 (7.1%) | 3 (5.5%) | 2 (13%) | 0.6 |
CK7 | 63 (90%) | 49 (89%) | 14 (93%) | >0.9 |
Vimentin | 8 (11%) | 6 (11%) | 2 (13%) | >0.9 |
CD10 | 22 (31%) | 17 (31%) | 5 (33%) | >0.9 |
ki67 expression | 46 (66%) | 36 (65%) | 10 (67%) | >0.9 |
CD117 (c-kit) | 60 (86%) | 48 (87%) | 12 (80%) | 0.8 |
mTOR Staining | 34 (50%) | 22 (41%) | 12 (86%) | 0.007 |
Cyld IRS | 0.004 | |||
- 0 | 59 (87%) | 49 (92%) | 10 (67%) | |
- 3 | 4 (5.9%) | 3 (5.7%) | 1 (6.7%) | |
- 4 | 3 (4.4%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (20%) | |
- 8 | 1 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (6.7%) | |
- 12 | 1 (1.5%) | 1 (1.9%) | 0 (0%) | |
Cyld Staining | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (1.9%) | 1 (6.7%) | >0.9 |
Characteristic | HR | 95% CI | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Male | 1.51 | 0.42, 5.35 | 0.5 |
Patient age | 1.05 | 1.00, 1.11 | 0.049 |
Neoplasm Subtype | |||
- Classic | — | — | |
- Eosinophillic | 0.98 | 0.30, 3.20 | >0.9 |
- Mixed | 0.17 | 0.02, 1.59 | 0.12 |
Grade (ISUP 2013) | |||
- Grade 1 | — | — | |
- Grade 2 | 0.37 | 0.06, 2.47 | 0.3 |
- Grade 3 | 0.27 | 0.06, 1.30 | 0.10 |
- Grade 4 | 2.73 | 0.54, 13.8 | 0.2 |
Grade (Paner) | |||
- Grade 1 | — | — | |
- Grade 2 | 0.76 | 0.21, 2.68 | 0.7 |
- Grade 3 | 5.82 | 1.37, 24.7 | 0.017 |
Grade (Avulova) | |||
- Grade 1 | — | — | |
- Grade 2 | 0.71 | 0.16, 3.06 | 0.6 |
- Grade 3 | 0.84 | 0.16, 4.35 | 0.8 |
- Grade 4 | 5.83 | 1.37, 24.7 | 0.017 |
mTOR staining | 8.57 | 1.91, 38.5 | 0.005 |
Cyld staining | 17.3 | 1.57, 192 | 0.020 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Papanikolaou, D.; Sokolakis, I.; Moysidis, K.; Pyrgidis, N.; Bobos, M.; Meditskou, S.; Hatzimouratidis, K. Grading Challenges and Prognostic Insights in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of 72 Patients. Medicina 2024, 60, 996. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60060996
Papanikolaou D, Sokolakis I, Moysidis K, Pyrgidis N, Bobos M, Meditskou S, Hatzimouratidis K. Grading Challenges and Prognostic Insights in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of 72 Patients. Medicina. 2024; 60(6):996. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60060996
Chicago/Turabian StylePapanikolaou, Dimitrios, Ioannis Sokolakis, Kyriakos Moysidis, Nikolaos Pyrgidis, Mattheos Bobos, Soultana Meditskou, and Konstantinos Hatzimouratidis. 2024. "Grading Challenges and Prognostic Insights in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of 72 Patients" Medicina 60, no. 6: 996. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60060996
APA StylePapanikolaou, D., Sokolakis, I., Moysidis, K., Pyrgidis, N., Bobos, M., Meditskou, S., & Hatzimouratidis, K. (2024). Grading Challenges and Prognostic Insights in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of 72 Patients. Medicina, 60(6), 996. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60060996