Purpose: We evaluated the pathological features of tumor size, lymph node and distant metastases, cell type, growth pattern, infiltration pattern, histological grade, local invasion and venous involvement of organ-confined renal carcinomas. The aim of this study was the re-evaluation of the TNM classification and the tumor cut-off point between T1 and T2 for renal cell carcinomas from the 1987 to the 1997 versions. Materials and Methods: (1) Patients with renal cell carcinoma who had been operated between October 1992 and August 2001 were evaluated. 437 of 691 patients showed T1 and T2 tumors. These organ-confined tumors have been divided into five groups: group 1: tumor-size of 20 mm or less (n = 16), group 2: 21–30 mm (n = 79); group 3: 31–40 mm (n = 83; group 4: 41–70 mm (n = 184), and group 5: more than 70 mm in diameter (only T2, n = 75). Follow-up ranged from 0 to 100 months (average 28.63 months). (2) Of 15,347 autopsies performed in Jena between 1985 and 1996, 272 renal cell carcinomas were revealed. In 145 of these 272 cases renal cell carcinomas were limited to the kidney. These 145 tumors were divided accordingly into 5 groups: group 1: 20 mm or less (n = 33), group 2: 21– 30 mm (n = 31); group 3: 31–40 mm (n = 29); group 4: 41–70 mm (n = 42), and group 5: T2 (n = 10). Clinicopathological criteria examined were lymph node and distant metastases, cell type, growth pattern, infiltration pattern, histological grade, local invasion and venous involvement. To identify the optimal cut-off point between T1 and T2 disease the χ2 test was used. Results: (1) In the clinical series only 1.8% (n = 8) of all cases showed lymph node metastases. Distant metastases were shown in 57 cases (13.04%); within group 1: 0%, group 2: 7.59%, group 3: 1.20%, group 4: 15.76%, group 5: 28%. The tumor grading was statistically correlated with tumor size. (2) In the pathological series 94 of the evaluated 145 patients were downstaged from T21987 to T11997. Lymph node and distant metastases were well correlated with tumor size. Lymph node metastases were seen in 0, 12.9, 31, 29.3 and 40% (group 1 to group 5) and distant metastases in 12.1, 25.8, 41.4, 47.7 and 60%. There were no statistically significant differences between T21997 and T13–7 cm. The tumor grading was statistically correlated with tumor size (grade 1: in 66.7, 25.8, 17.2, 9.5 and 0%). Conclusion: Our data suggest that the current cut-off diameter between T1 and T2 renal cell carcinomas (7 cm) is too high. Lowering the cut-off level will result in better discriminatory power of the TNM classification. From our data, we conclude that the cut-off diameter should be lowered to 3.5 cm (p < 0.001).

Keywords:
Renal cell carcinoma
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
2004
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.