Pathology of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
No Results
No Results
processing….
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is a renal cortical tumor typically characterized by malignant epithelial cells with clear cytoplasm and a compact-alveolar (nested) or acinar growth pattern interspersed with intricate, arborizing vasculature. A variable proportion of cells with granular eosinophilic cytoplasm may be present. See the image below.
See Renal Cell Carcinoma: Recognition and Follow-up, a Critical Images slideshow, to help evaluate renal masses and determine when and what type of follow-up is necessary.
Tumors in which eosinophilic cells predominate were previously classified as “granular cell” carcinoma but are currently included among CCRCCs in the 2004 World Health Organization classification of renal tumors based on the presence of vasculature and genetic alterations typical of CCRCC.
The inclusion of tumors with granular cells prompted some classifications to adopt the terminology “conventional” rather than “clear cell” renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, current classifications have reverted to CCRCC. [1] CCRCC is characterized genetically by alterations to chromosome 3p.
Go to Renal Cell Carcinoma and Sarcomatoid and Rhabdoid Renal Cell Carcinoma for more complete information on these topics.
The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been rising steadily in Europe and the United States for the past 3 decades, with a particular rise in the proportion of small, asymptomatic tumors detected incidentally via abdominal imaging.
Evidence of geographic variation exists, with the highest incidences occurring in northern Europe and North America and the lowest occurring in Asia and Africa. Higher rates are reported for men than women (the male-to-female ratios range between 1.5:1 and 2:1), for black versus white Americans, and for urban compared with rural populations. [2, 3, 4] These trends mainly reflect the incidence of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), which is the most common histologic variant, accounting for 75-88% of RCCs in contemporary surgical series. [5, 6]
The average age at diagnosis of CCRCC is 60-64 years. [5, 7, 8] However, 7% of sporadic CCRCC is diagnosed in patients younger than 40 years, [9] and rare cases have been reported in patients aged 14-18 years without evidence of familial disorders. [10] Some tumors previously diagnosed as CCRCC in younger patients may in fact represent the Xp11 translocation tumor type, which has recently been analyzed. [11]
Smoking, obesity, and hypertension are the 3 most well-established risk factors associated with development of sporadic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Smoking is calculated to play a role in the development of RCC in 10-20% of cases among women and 20-30% of cases among men. Obesity is calculated to contribute to the development of 30% of cases in Europe and up to 40% in the United States and Canada. Relative risks for RCC reported for hypertension range from 1.3-2.0. [2, 3, 4] By contrast, only 1-5% of RCC in contemporary surgical series are associated with recognized hereditary genetic disorders. [7, 12]
The main inherited disorder predisposing to development CCRCC is von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease, which involves a germline mutation of the VHL gene at chromosome 3p25. Affected individuals are susceptible to tumors of multiple organ systems, including cysts and tumors of the kidney, which occur in 25-45% of cases with a mean age at onset of 40 years. The renal tumors are frequently multifocal and/or bilateral and are always of the clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) histologic type. [13]
Other familial disorders that carry an increased risk for the development of CCRCC include constitutional chromosome 3 translocations, which have been described in 8 families to date. They involve germline translocations between chromosome 3 and chromosomes 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8, which result in loss of genetic material from chromosome 3. [14]
Finally, familial nonsyndromic CCRCC involves families in which multiple relatives develop CCRCCs that often have the hallmarks of hereditary tumors (multifocality, bilaterality, and early age of onset) but for which no genetic cause has yet been discovered. [15] CCRCC may also arise in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex or Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome, although these syndromes mainly predispose to renal angiomyolipomas and chromophobe or oncocytic hybrid tumors, respectively. [16, 17]
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is proposed to arise from epithelial cells of the proximal convoluted tubules of the nephron, within the renal cortex. [1, 18] Extension into the renal sinus is the most common pathway of spread for most histologic types of RCC because no connective tissue separates the cortical columns of Bertin from the abundant lymphatics and vasculature within the sinus fat. [19]
CCRCCs have a higher propensity for vascular invasion than for lymphatic invasion, [20] with malignant cells found within small intrarenal veins even in 18-29% of organ-confined tumors. [21, 22] Thus, for CCRCC, invasion into the renal sinus usually involves extension within the renal vein, leading to a higher propensity for distant metastasis than for locoregional spread and involvement of the regional lymph nodes, which are more common pathways of spread in chromophobe and papillary RCC, respectively. [21, 23, 24, 25]
Detailed pathologic examination of 120 consecutive CCRCCs showed renal sinus invasion in 59 (49%) tumors, with 53 (44%) involving the renal vein and 6 (5%) invading renal sinus fat alone. By contrast, only 30 (25%) tumors invaded the renal capsule, and all of these also had renal sinus invasion. [26]
Other studies have found spread of CCRCC along the inferior vena cava and/or renal vein in 22-24% of cases. [21, 24] Analysis of metastatic CCRCC deposits has shown the most commonly involved sites to be as follows [21, 25] :
Lung (33-72%)
Intra-abdominal lymph nodes (3-35%)
Bone (21-25%)
Brain (7-13%)
Liver (5-10%)
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is more likely to be symptomatic at presentation compared with other histologic variants of RCC (46% of CCRCC compared with 35% of papillary RCC and 42% of chromophobe RCC). [27]
The most common signs and symptoms reported for patients presenting clinically with RCC in modern surgical series include the following:
Anemia (52% of cases)
Hepatic dysfunction (32%)
Gross hematuria (24%)
Weight loss (23%)
Hypoalbuminemia (20%)
Flank pain (20%)
Malaise (19%)
Hypercalcemia (13%)
Anorexia (11%)
Symptoms reported in less than 10% of patients include the following:
Thrombocytosis
Night sweats
Fever
A flank or abdominal mass
Hypertension
Erythrocytosis
Chills
All of the above signs and symptoms can occur in patients with localized as well as metastatic disease. Many of them represent paraneoplastic syndromes. [28]
However, approximately 46% of patients with RCC in modern surgical series are asymptomatic, with the tumor diagnosed incidentally during abdominal radiologic imaging for unrelated symptoms. [28] This reflects the introduction of high-resolution ultrasonography and computed tomography (CT) in the 1980s, which has increased the detection rate for RCC, in particular the detection of tumors smaller than 3 cm in maximal diameter. [29]
The differential diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is as follows:
Chromophobe RCC, eosinophilic variant
Multilocular cystic RCC
Papillary RCC with clear cell change
Clear cell papillary RCC
Translocation RCC
The use of preoperative diagnosis by percutaneous needle core biopsy has shown 78-98% accuracy for determining the histological subtype of renal tumors, even in masses smaller than 5 cm in maximal diameter. [30, 31, 32]
Although ultrasonography is commonly involved in the detection of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is better suited for determining detailed staging information, and contrast-enhanced biphasic or triphasic helical CT also has some value in preoperative distinction between histologic subtypes of RCC. [33]
A mixed enhancement pattern of both high-attenuation hypervascular soft-tissue components and low-attenuation areas indicative of necrotic or cystic changes is highly predictive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) (80-90% of cases), compared with other RCC subtypes. However, this pattern is also seen in a considerable proportion (40-60%) of benign oncocytomas. [34]
Imaging studies of CCRCC have shown that extensive cystic degeneration with associated necrosis occurs in less than 15% of cases, [35] whereas focal cystic necrosis is relatively common. Focal calcification can be seen in 11-26% of CCRCCs, [34, 36, 37] and ossification may also be present in rare cases. [38]
Go to Imaging of Renal Cell Carcinoma for more complete information on this topic.
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is typically a solitary tumor, with multifocality and bilaterality only occurring in 2-7% and 1-2% of sporadic cases, respectively. [8, 39, 40] Tumor sizes in contemporary series range from 0.3-30 cm in maximal diameter, with a mean of 6-7 cm, [5, 8] although current trends are toward smaller tumors.
The tumor commonly presents as a bosselated, well-circumscribed mass with a capsule or pseudocapsule and a pushing margin. Occasionally, an infiltrative margin is seen. On cut section, CCRCC is typically a golden color because of the accumulation of lipid in the malignant cells, while areas of hemorrhage (brown), fibrosis (gray), necrosis, and cystic degeneration often give a variegated appearance. [41] See the images below.
Typically, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is characterized by epithelial cells with clear cytoplasm and a well-defined cell membrane, interspersed within a highly vascularized stroma. The transparency of the cytoplasm results from accumulated droplets of glycogen, phospholipids, and neutral lipids-in particular, cholesterol ester. [42, 43] Glycogen can be demonstrated by periodic-acid Schiff (PAS) stain, whereas neutral lipids can be identified using the Oil red O stain on unfixed tissue but are dissolved by histological processing.
CCRCC may also contain a variable proportion of cells with granular eosinophilic cytoplasm. Rarely, these granular cells are the predominant or even the only cell type. [41] See the images below.
Nuclear characteristics form the basis of the Fuhrman nuclear grading system and are currently used for grading CCRCC, as follows [44] :
Grade 1: Nuclei are small (< 10µm) and round, with dense chromatin and inconspicuous nucleoli
Grade 2: Nuclei are slightly larger (15 µm), with finely granular chromatin and small nucleoli
Grade 3: The nuclei are 20 µm in size and may be oval in shape, with coarsely granular chromatin and prominent nucleoli
Grade 4: The nuclei are pleomorphic, with open chromatin and single or multiple macronucleoli
Increasing nuclear grade is associated with several histologic tumor characteristics, including an increasing proportion of eosinophilic cells [43, 44] and hyaline globules, which are often associated with granular cytoplasm. These can be identified either intracellularly or extracellularly in 17% of CCRCCs as bright eosinophilic globules that stain positively with PAS stain or red with the Masson trichrome stain. [43, 45]
Histologic coagulative necrosis occurs in 28-37% of CCRCCs, most commonly in those with high nuclear grade. [39, 46, 47] Other variations associated with a high grade include cells with sarcomatoid or rhabdoid differentiation. Sarcomatoid differentiation is seen in 5-25% of CCRCCs and is identified as focal to extensive regions of malignant spindled cells growing as whorled or intersecting fascicles, or in a storiform pattern.
Association with histologic necrosis is particularly common. Tumors are usually classified as Fuhrman grade 4 based on the presence of these sarcomatoid elements. [48, 49, 50]
Rhabdoid differentiation occurs in 3-5% of RCCs, most commonly in CCRCC, and is identified as focal to extensive regions of large, high-grade malignant cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, irregular eccentric nuclei, and large globular eosinophilic intracytoplasmic inclusions that stain strongly for vimentin. [51, 52, 53, 54] Occasionally, both forms of differentiation may coexist within a tumor.
CCRCC may grow in various architectural patterns, with the most common types being compact-alveolar (nested), tubular (acinar), and microcystic. In the compact-alveolar or nested pattern, solid rounded nests of epithelial cells are separated by a delicate branching network of connective tissue that is highly vascularized with thin walled blood vessels, resulting in a sinusoidal appearance. See the images below.
In the tubular or acinar pattern, epithelial cells line the septa of vascularized connective tissue and form central lumens. In regions of cystic degeneration, these structures dilate to form a microcystic and/or macrocystic pattern with luminal spaces containing necrotic material, pale eosinophilic fluid, and red blood cells. [41, 55] CCRCCs often contain more than one architectural pattern, and focal regions of papillary or pseudopapillary architecture may also occur. See the images below.
When mixed patterns are seen, the possibility of an Xp11 translocation RCC must be considered. These tumors commonly show both papillary architecture and a nested pattern with vascular stroma similar to compact-alveolar (nested) CCRCC. [11]
In addition, rare tumors are described in which the malignant clear cell epithelial component is embedded within prolific metaplastic spindle cell stroma (see the image below). [56, 57]
The spindle cells show evidence of smooth muscle differentiation and, in some cases, merge with the walls of blood vessels, suggestive of vascular proliferation in response to angiogenic factors produced by the tumor. [56] Genetic analysis has demonstrated loss of chromosome 3 or 3p in all 3 cases analyzed, [57] supporting the authors’ proposed classification as a variant of CCRCC.
When papillary areas are noted, care must be taken to exclude the more recently described entity of clear cell papillary renal carcinoma. These tumors are characterized by low-grade nuclear features, usually Fuhrman grade 1 or occasionally grade 2. The tubulopapillary areas are lined by cells with nuclei orientated away from the basement membrane. More classical clear-cell–like areas are often seen. Immunostains for CK7 and CA9 are characteristically positive, while stains for CD10 and AMACAR are negative. Cytogenetic analysis shows no 3p deletions or trisomy 7/17. [58]
Ultrastructurally, CCRCC shows tubular differentiation, with tumor cells clustered around microlumens and separated from the stroma by a well-defined basal lamina. Distinctive features include long microvilli typical of the brush border seen in renal proximal tubules and abundant lipid vacuoles and glycogen deposits.
Other organelles such as Golgi bodies and rough endoplasmic reticulum tend to be absent or sparse and may be pushed to the cell periphery by accumulations of lipid and glycogen. [43] Cells with eosinophilic granular cytoplasm still display high levels of lipid and glycogen but also contain increased numbers of mitochondria, which tend to be large, pleomorphic, and haphazardly distributed through the cytoplasm. [59]
CCRCC tends to express the low molecular weight cytokeratins (CK) characteristic of simple epithelia (CK7, 8, 18, and 19), in particular, the CK expressed most strongly by epithelial cells of the proximal convoluted tubules (CK8 and 18). Between 94-100% of CCRCCs stain positively with antibodies against CK18, while 14-40% are positive for CK8.
Immunoreactivity for CK7 (14-20%) and CK19 (13-20%) is less common. [60, 61] Coexpression of these CK has been associated with genomic stability, low grade, and favorable prognosis in CCRCC. [62]
Expression of CK7 was observed in all of the recently reported CCRCC variants with smooth muscle stroma, consistent with their low nuclear grades; however, CK19 expression was not determined. [56, 57] Most (87-100%) CCRCCs strongly express the intermediate filament vimentin, [61, 63] whereas positive immunostaining for high-molecular-weight cytokeratins (CKs 1-6 and 9-16) is extremely rare. [60, 61]
Overexpression of the epithelial marker EMA/MUC1 (determined as cytoplasmic and/or total cell membrane staining) is seen in 77-100% of CCRCCs. The proportion of positive cells increases with tumor grade. [64, 65, 66, 67]
Positive staining for the proximal tubular brush border antigens CD10 and RCC marker is reported for 82-94% and 47-85% of CCRCCs, respectively. [67, 68, 69] Relatively few CCRCCs are positive for expression of E-cadherin (5-14%), CD117/KIT (0-15%), parvalbumin (8-22%), or AMACR (4-25%). [63, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75] Thus, a standard immunoprofile expected for CCRCC is vimentin+ /EMA+ /CD10+ /RCC marker+ /AMACR- /CK7- /CK19- /CD117- /E-cadherin- /parvalbumin-. [76]
In a 2012 study, epithelial adhesion molecule (EPCAM) was shown to impart independent prognostic value, particularly in low grade CCRCC. [77]
Immunostains for AMACR and CK7 are considered most useful for distinguishing CCRCC from papillary RCC, whereas vimentin, CK7, CD117, E-cadherin, and parvalbumin are considered most useful for distinguishing CCRCC from chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma. [75, 76] Recent evidence suggests that immunostaining for the calcium-binding protein secretagogin may also prove useful for distinguishing CCRCC from other RCC subtypes, with positive staining observed in 35/94 (37%) of CCRCCs but in none of 37 papillary RCC, 24 chromophobe RCC, or 30 oncocytomas. [78] This preliminary evidence also suggested an association between strong expression of secretagogin and a higher metastasis rate in CRCC; however, the numbers analyzed were small, and confirmation in a larger study is required.
Distinguishing between unusual variants of the common RCC histologic types and other types of tumors can be difficult. For example, CCRCCs composed predominantly of granular eosinophilic cells may show a morphological resemblance to the eosinophilic variant of chromophobe RCC (chRCC) or to oncocytoma. Immunohistochemical markers suggested for this distinction include E-cadherin, CD117/KIT, or parvalbumin, which are rarely expressed in CCRCC.
By contrast, E-cadherin is positive in 95-100% of chRCC and 47% of oncocytomas, [66, 75] CD117/KIT is positive in 55-88% of chRCCs and 59-100% of oncocytomas, [71, 72, 75] and parvalbumin expression is positive in 80-100% of both chRCCs and oncocytomas. [70, 74]
Other markers that may prove useful include the RCC marker and vimentin. These are commonly expressed in CCRCC, including the granular eosinophilic variant. [68, 69] By contrast, the RCC marker is expressed in only 0-4% of chRCC and 0-14% of oncocytomas, [67, 68, 75, 79] while immunostaining for vimentin is positive in only 1-25% of oncocytomas and is negative in chRCC. [63, 70, 75, 80]
Rare tumors composed mainly of clear cells but with a predominant papillary architecture tend to be classified as papillary RCC with extensive clear cell change. However, genetic analysis has, in some cases, found specific translocations characteristic of Xp11 translocation RCC, a tumor with clear and/or eosinophilic cells that can show both papillary architecture and a nested pattern with vascular stroma similar to compact-alveolar (nested) CCRCC.
Xp11 translocation RCCs usually occur in children but can occasionally arise in adults. They can be identified by nuclear immunostaining for the TFE3 protein. [11] In other such cases, genetic analysis has revealed alterations typical of CCRCC (loss of chromosomes 3p, 7, and 17) [81] or a combination of the alterations seen in CCRCC (loss of 3p and 14, gain of 5q) and papillary RCC (gain of chromosomes 7 and 12). [82]
Histologic typing of such tumors remains controversial because the immunostaining profiles for CCRCC and papillary RCC can be similar regarding vimentin, CD10, RCC marker, and EMA/MUC1. [75, 76] Because few CCRCCs express AMACR or CK7, these immunohistochemical markers may prove useful for distinguishing CCRCC from papillary RCC with extensive clear cell change and/or predominantly nonpapillary (solid) architecture. AMACR is expressed in 87-100% of papillary RCCs of both type I and type 2, [73, 75] while CK7 expression is present in 80-87% of papillary RCCs. [60, 61]
RCC with predominantly papillary architecture but extensive clear cell cytology can be characterized using both genetic analysis (chromosomes 3p, 7, 17, and Y) and immunostaining (AMACR, CK7, TFE3). In a study of 14 such cases, [83] the immunostaining and genetic profiles correlated well, and this approach allowed classification of 9 tumors as papillary RCC and 3 as CCRCCs, leaving only 2 cases as unclassified RCC.
CCRCC with extensive cystic degeneration must be distinguished from multilocular cystic renal cell carcinoma (MCRCC), which is recognized in the 2004 WHO classification as a separate type of low-grade tumor with a very good prognosis. [84] MCRCC may have clear cells lining the cysts and small nests of clear cells within the fibrous septa; however, this tumor can be distinguished from CCRCC with cystic change, or from CCRCC arising within the wall of a pre-existing cyst, by the absence of expansile solid nodules. [85]
Low-grade CCRCC with a predominant component of metaplastic smooth muscle stroma must be distinguished from mixed epithelial and stromal tumor of the kidney (MESTK), a benign tumor in which the epithelial components are predominantly cystic, clear cells are rare, the epithelial cells do not express S100 protein, and the spindled cells are immunopositive for ER in 64% and PR in 32% of cases. [86, 87]
By contrast, in all CCRCCs with smooth muscle stroma tested to date, cystic components were rare, the epithelial components were positive for S100, and the spindled cells were negative for ER and PR. [56, 57] The smooth muscle component of this CCRCC variant has a morphological resemblance to muscle-predominant renal angiomyolipoma or to leiomyoma but can be distinguished by immunostaining for HMB45, which is positive in the latter 2 tumor types. [88]
Studies in patients with VHL disease established the importance of genetic alterations involving chromosome 3p in the development of CCRCC, while subsequent research has shown that chromosome 3 or 3p is lost in 80-98% of sporadic CCRCCs. [89, 90, 91]
Inactivation or loss of the VHL gene results in the absence of a functional VHL protein, which under normoxic conditions usually targets the alpha subunit of the transcription factor hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) for degradation. Loss of functional VHL protein therefore leads to accumulation of HIF and activation of its hypoxia-inducible target genes under normoxic rather than hypoxic conditions. HIF target genes include the vascular endothelial growth factor gene VEGF, which may explain the prolific angiogenesis associated with CCRCC. [13]
Although alterations at 3p are believed to be the initiating genetic event, recent work suggests that CCRCC can subsequently progress along at least 2 distinct genetic pathways. [91] The most common pathway (80% of CCRCC) mainly involves losses of entire chromosomes and partial losses through unbalanced translocations, resulting in a hypodiploid karyotype. In this pathway, loss of 3p often occurs together with gain of 5q via a translocation between chromosomes 3 and 5. Gain of 5q is seen in 40-70% of cases, and this tends to be followed by losses of chromosomes 14 or 14q (40-60%), 8 or 8p (20-30%), 9 or 9p (15-25%), and 6 or 6p (15-25%). Furthermore, as a result of the HIF1A gene residing on chromosome 14, loss of 14q has been associated with differential expression of HIF1α and subsequent prognostic phenotypes. [92, 93]
A less common pathway followed in 18% of CCRCCs mainly involves gains of entire chromosomes resulting in a hyperdiploid karyotype. Common gains involve chromosomes 7 (18-30%), 16 (11%), 20 (10%), 12 (10-15%), and 2 (9-14%). This second pathway is similar to the genetic events seen in papillary RCC, except that most (67%) papillary RCCs also show gain of chromosome 17.
Progression of CCRCC can eventually involve reduplication of the entire genome to give a polyploid karyotype, followed by further losses or gains of genetic material. [89, 90, 91] Complex polyploid karyotypes are particularly common in tumors with sarcomatoid differentiation. [94, 95]
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is currently staged according to the 2002 version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer’s TNM (tumor-node-metastasis) staging system for renal tumors. [96] Most criteria of this revised system reflect the pattern of spread common in CCRCC.
Tumors restricted to the kidney are stratified as follows:
T1a (4 cm or less in maximal diameter)
T1b (greater than 4 cm but not greater than 7 cm)
T2 (greater than 7 cm)
Tumors not restricted to the kidney are stratified as follows:
T3a (invading adrenal gland or perinephric and/or renal sinus fat but not beyond Gerota’s fascia)
T3b (extending into the renal vein, or the inferior vena cava [IVC] but below the diaphragm)
T3c (extending into the IVC above the diaphragm or invading into the wall of the IVC)
T4 (extension beyond Gerota’s fascia)
Tumors are stratified according to regional lymph node metastasis as follows:
NX (nodes not assessed)
N0 (no nodal involvement)
N1 (involvement of a single node)
N2 (involvement of more than one node)
Finally, tumors are stratified according to distant metastasis as follows:
MX (distant metastasis not assessed)
M0 (no distant metastasis)
M1 (distant metastasis present)
Treatment for organ-confined CCRCC is primarily surgical, with partial nephrectomy usually considered for tumors smaller than 4 cm in diameter (stage pT1a) and radical nephrectomy for tumors larger than 4 cm. [97] Trials of cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation for small tumors have shown local recurrence rates of 5% and 12%, respectively, compared with 3% for partial nephrectomy. [98]
Approximately 20% of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) respond to cytokine immunotherapy with interleukin-2, although the median survival is increased only from 10 months to 34 months. [55, 99] Clinical trials show slightly more promising results for treatment of metastatic CCRCC with antiangiogenic agents (sunitinib, sorafenib; see the image below) and mTOR kinase inhibitors (temsirolimus), which have been approved for treatment of RCC in the United States and Europe. [99]
Patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) tend to have a worse prognosis than patients with other histologic subtypes of RCC, with 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 50-69%, compared with 67-87% for papillary RCC and 78-87% for chRCC. [7, 8, 46, 100] However, analysis of 1000 patients showed very similar 5-year disease-specific survival rates for CCRCC (10.5%) and papillary RCC (10.3%) once metastatic disease was present. [5]
Multivariate analyses indicate that histologic RCC subtype has no significant independent value for predicting cancer-specific survival because prognosis is primarily dependent upon TNM stage and Fuhrman nuclear grade. [5, 8, 40] Multivariate analysis specifically of CCRCC cases shows that in addition to the 3 separate components of tumor staging (T, N and M stage), other significant independent predictors of poor prognosis are nuclear grade, tumor size, and the presence of histologic necrosis or sarcomatoid differentiation. [39, 46, 47, 24]
Rhabdoid differentiation is also observed in CCRCC and seems to impart a poor outcome similar to sarcomatoid change [51, 53, 54] ; however, this factor has not yet been tested in predictive models. Interestingly, histological necrosis is seen more commonly in papillary RCC (39-46%, compared with 28-37% for CCRCC) but is not a significant predictor of poor prognosis for papillary RCC, even in univariate analyses. [7, 46, 47]
Assessment of molecular pathways may further contribute to predicting ultimate prognosis. The association between loss of chromosome 14q and differential expression of HIFα1 on clinical outcome in patients with nonmetastatic CCRC may advocate these as molecular markers of poor prognosis. [92, 93] In addition, recent data related to mTor and hypoxia-induced pathways in CCRCC appear encouraging and may provide improved prognostication for the individual patient. [101]
Overview
How is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) characterized?
What is the prevalence of cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
Which factors increase the risk for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
What is the role of genetics in the etiology of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
What is the pathophysiology of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
How does clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) spread?
What are the most common sites of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) metastasis?
What are the signs and symptoms of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
What is the role of imaging studies in the workup of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
Which gross pathologic findings are characteristic of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
Which microscopic pathologic findings are characteristic of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
How is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) graded based on nuclear characteristics?
What are the characteristics of rhabdoid differentiation in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
Which molecular and genetic findings are characteristic of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
How is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) staged?
How is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) treated?
What is the prognosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC)?
Delahunt B, Eble JN. History of the development of the classification of renal cell neoplasia. Clin Lab Med. 2005 Jun. 25(2):231-46, v. [Medline].
McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Tarone RE. Epidemiologic aspects of renal cell carcinoma. Semin Oncol. 2006 Oct. 33(5):527-33. [Medline].
Decastro GJ, McKiernan JM. Epidemiology, clinical staging, and presentation of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am. 2008 Nov. 35(4):581-92; vi. [Medline].
Pascual D, Borque A. Epidemiology of kidney cancer. Adv Urol. 2008. 782381. [Medline].
Patard JJ, Leray E, Rioux-Leclercq N, et al. Prognostic value of histologic subtypes in renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter experience. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 20. 23(12):2763-71. [Medline].
Schachter LR, Cookson MS, Chang SS, et al. Second prize: frequency of benign renal cortical tumors and histologic subtypes based on size in a contemporary series: what to tell our patients. J Endourol. 2007 Aug. 21(8):819-23. [Medline].
Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, Weaver AL, Blute ML. Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 May. 27(5):612-24. [Medline].
Gudbjartsson T, Hardarson S, Petursdottir V, Thoroddsen A, Magnusson J, Einarsson GV. Histological subtyping and nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma and their implications for survival: a retrospective nation-wide study of 629 patients. Eur Urol. 2005 Oct. 48(4):593-600. [Medline].
Taccoen X, Valeri A, Descotes JL, et al. Renal cell carcinoma in adults 40 years old or less: young age is an independent prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival. Eur Urol. 2007 Apr. 51(4):980-7. [Medline].
Bruder E, Passera O, Harms D, et al. Morphologic and molecular characterization of renal cell carcinoma in children and young adults. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Sep. 28(9):1117-32. [Medline].
Argani P, Olgac S, Tickoo SK, et al. Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma in adults: expanded clinical, pathologic, and genetic spectrum. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007 Aug. 31(8):1149-60. [Medline].
Duchene DA, Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Sagalowsky AI, Koeneman KS. Histopathology of surgically managed renal tumors: analysis of a contemporary series. Urology. 2003 Nov. 62(5):827-30. [Medline].
Maher ER. Von Hippel-Lindau disease. Curr Mol Med. 2004 Dec. 4(8):833-42. [Medline].
Bonne AC, Bodmer D, Schoenmakers EF, van Ravenswaaij CM, Hoogerbrugge N, van Kessel AG. Chromosome 3 translocations and familial renal cell cancer. Curr Mol Med. 2004 Dec. 4(8):849-54. [Medline].
Woodward ER. Familial non-syndromic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Curr Mol Med. 2004 Dec. 4(8):843-8. [Medline].
Henske EP. The genetic basis of kidney cancer: why is tuberous sclerosis complex often overlooked?. Curr Mol Med. 2004 Dec. 4(8):825-31. [Medline].
Schmidt LS. Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome, a genodermatosis that increases risk for renal carcinoma. Curr Mol Med. 2004 Dec. 4(8):877-85. [Medline].
Wallace AC, Nairn RC. Renal tubular antigens in kidney tumors. Cancer. 1972 Apr. 29(4):977-81. [Medline].
Bonsib SM. The renal sinus is the principal invasive pathway: a prospective study of 100 renal cell carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Dec. 28(12):1594-600. [Medline].
Bonsib SM. Renal lymphatics, and lymphatic involvement in sinus vein invasive (pT3b) clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a study of 40 cases. Mod Pathol. 2006 May. 19(5):746-53. [Medline].
Mai KT, Landry DC, Robertson SJ, et al. A comparative study of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with correlation to subtype and primary tumor. Pathol Res Pract. 2001. 197(10):671-5. [Medline].
Cho HJ, Kim SJ, Ha US, et al. Prognostic value of capsular invasion for localized clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2009 Dec. 56(6):1006-12. [Medline].
Waldert M, Haitel A, Marberger M, et al. Comparison of type I and II papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and clear cell RCC. BJU Int. 2008 Nov. 102(10):1381-4. [Medline].
Margulis V, Tamboli P, Matin SF, Swanson DA, Wood CG. Analysis of clinicopathologic predictors of oncologic outcome provides insight into the natural history of surgically managed papillary renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2008 Apr 1. 112(7):1480-8. [Medline].
Klatte T, Han KR, Said JW, et al. Pathobiology and prognosis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2008 Nov-Dec. 26(6):604-9. [Medline].
Bonsib SM. T2 clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a rare entity: a study of 120 clear cell renal cell carcinomas. J Urol. 2005 Oct. 174(4 Pt 1):1199-202; discussion 1202. [Medline].
Lee CT, Katz J, Fearn PA, Russo P. Mode of presentation of renal cell carcinoma provides prognostic information. Urol Oncol. 2002 Jul-Aug. 7(4):135-40. [Medline].
Kim HL, Belldegrun AS, Freitas DG, et al. Paraneoplastic signs and symptoms of renal cell carcinoma: implications for prognosis. J Urol. 2003 Nov. 170(5):1742-6. [Medline].
Smith SJ, Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, Hulnick DH, Horii SC, Raghavendra BN. Renal cell carcinoma: earlier discovery and increased detection. Radiology. 1989 Mar. 170(3 Pt 1):699-703. [Medline].
Volpe A, Kachura JR, Geddie WR, et al. Techniques, safety and accuracy of sampling of renal tumors by fine needle aspiration and core biopsy. J Urol. 2007 Aug. 178(2):379-86. [Medline].
Neuzillet Y, Lechevallier E, Andre M, Daniel L, Coulange C. Accuracy and clinical role of fine needle percutaneous biopsy with computerized tomography guidance of small (less than 4.0 cm) renal masses. J Urol. 2004 May. 171(5):1802-5. [Medline].
Shannon BA, Cohen RJ, de Bruto H, Davies RJ. The value of preoperative needle core biopsy for diagnosing benign lesions among small, incidentally detected renal masses. J Urol. 2008 Oct. 180(4):1257-61; discussion 1261. [Medline].
Heidenreich A, Ravery V. Preoperative imaging in renal cell cancer. World J Urol. 2004 Nov. 22(5):307-15. [Medline].
Zhang J, Lefkowitz RA, Ishill NM, et al. Solid renal cortical tumors: differentiation with CT. Radiology. 2007 Aug. 244(2):494-504. [Medline].
Hartman DS, Davis CJ Jr, Johns T, Goldman SM. Cystic renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1986 Aug. 28(2):145-53. [Medline].
Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, Kim CS, Kim KR, Cho KS. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jun. 178(6):1499-506. [Medline].
Sheir KZ, El-Azab M, Mosbah A, El-Baz M, Shaaban AA. Differentiation of renal cell carcinoma subtypes by multislice computerized tomography. J Urol. 2005 Aug. 174(2):451-5; discussion 455. [Medline].
Cribbs RK, Ishaq M, Arnold M, O’Brien J, Lamb J, Frankel WL. Renal cell carcinoma with massive osseous metaplasia and bone marrow elements. Ann Diagn Pathol. 1999 Oct. 3(5):294-9. [Medline].
Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol. 2002 Dec. 168(6):2395-400. [Medline].
Amin MB, Amin MB, Tamboli P, et al. Prognostic impact of histologic subtyping of adult renal epithelial neoplasms: an experience of 405 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002 Mar. 26(3):281-91. [Medline].
Grignon DJ, Che M. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Clin Lab Med. 2005 Jun. 25(2):305-16. [Medline].
Gebhard RL, Clayman RV, Prigge WF, et al. Abnormal cholesterol metabolism in renal clear cell carcinoma. J Lipid Res. 1987 Oct. 28(10):1177-84. [Medline].
Krishnan B, Truong LD. Renal epithelial neoplasms: the diagnostic implications of electron microscopic study in 55 cases. Hum Pathol. 2002 Jan. 33(1):68-79. [Medline].
Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1982 Oct. 6(7):655-63. [Medline].
Hes O, Michal M, Sulc M, Kocova L, Hora M, Rousarova M. Glassy hyaline globules in granular cell carcinoma, chromophobe cell carcinoma, and oncocytoma of the kidney. Ann Diagn Pathol. 1998 Feb. 2(1):12-8. [Medline].
Moch H, Gasser T, Amin MB, Torhorst J, Sauter G, Mihatsch MJ. Prognostic utility of the recently recommended histologic classification and revised TNM staging system of renal cell carcinoma: a Swiss experience with 588 tumors. Cancer. 2000 Aug 1. 89(3):604-14. [Medline].
Sengupta S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, et al. Histologic coagulative tumor necrosis as a prognostic indicator of renal cell carcinoma aggressiveness. Cancer. 2005 Aug 1. 104(3):511-20. [Medline].
Delahunt B. Sarcomatoid renal carcinoma: the final common dedifferentiation pathway of renal epithelial malignancies. Pathology. 1999 Aug. 31(3):185-90. [Medline].
de Peralta-Venturina M, Moch H, Amin M, et al. Sarcomatoid differentiation in renal cell carcinoma: a study of 101 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001 Mar. 25(3):275-84. [Medline].
Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, et al. Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: an examination of underlying histologic subtype and an analysis of associations with patient outcome. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Apr. 28(4):435-41. [Medline].
Gokden N, Nappi O, Swanson PE, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with rhabdoid features. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Oct. 24(10):1329-38. [Medline].
Kuroiwa K, Kinoshita Y, Shiratsuchi H, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with rhabdoid features: an aggressive neoplasm. Histopathology. 2002 Dec. 41(6):538-48. [Medline].
Shannon B, Stan Wisniewski Z, Bentel J, Cohen RJ. Adult rhabdoid renal cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002 Dec. 126(12):1506-10. [Medline].
Leroy X, Zini L, Buob D, Ballereau C, Villers A, Aubert S. Renal cell carcinoma with rhabdoid features: an aggressive neoplasm with overexpression of p53. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Jan. 131(1):102-6. [Medline].
Upton MP, Parker RA, Youmans A, McDermott DF, Atkins MB. Histologic predictors of renal cell carcinoma response to interleukin-2-based therapy. J Immunother. 2005 Sep-Oct. 28(5):488-95. [Medline].
Kuhn E, De Anda J, Manoni S, Netto G, Rosai J. Renal cell carcinoma associated with prominent angioleiomyoma-like proliferation: Report of 5 cases and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Nov. 30(11):1372-81. [Medline].
Shannon BA, Cohen RJ, Segal A, Baker EG, Murch AR. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma with smooth muscle stroma. Hum Pathol. 2009 Mar. 40(3):425-9. [Medline].
Rohan SM, Xiao Y, Liang Y, Dudas ME, Al-Ahmadie HA, Fine SW. Clear-cell papillary renal cell carcinoma: molecular and immunohistochemical analysis with emphasis on the von Hippel-Lindau gene and hypoxia-inducible factor pathway-related proteins. Mod Pathol. 2011 Sep. 24(9):1207-20. [Medline].
Tickoo SK, Lee MW, Eble JN, et al. Ultrastructural observations on mitochondria and microvesicles in renal oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and eosinophilic variant of conventional (clear cell) renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Sep. 24(9):1247-56. [Medline].
Langner C, Wegscheider BJ, Ratschek M, Schips L, Zigeuner R. Keratin immunohistochemistry in renal cell carcinoma subtypes and renal oncocytomas: a systematic analysis of 233 tumors. Virchows Arch. 2004 Feb. 444(2):127-34. [Medline].
Skinnider BF, Folpe AL, Hennigar RA, et al. Distribution of cytokeratins and vimentin in adult renal neoplasms and normal renal tissue: potential utility of a cytokeratin antibody panel in the differential diagnosis of renal tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Jun. 29(6):747-54. [Medline].
Mertz KD, Demichelis F, Sboner A, et al. Association of cytokeratin 7 and 19 expression with genomic stability and favorable prognosis in clear cell renal cell cancer. Int J Cancer. 2008 Aug 1. 123(3):569-76. [Medline].
Liu L, Qian J, Singh H, Meiers I, Zhou X, Bostwick DG. Immunohistochemical analysis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, renal oncocytoma, and clear cell carcinoma: an optimal and practical panel for differential diagnosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Aug. 131(8):1290-7. [Medline].
Fujita K, Denda K, Yamamoto M, Matsumoto T, Fujime M, Irimura T. Expression of MUC1 mucins inversely correlated with post-surgical survival of renal cell carcinoma patients. Br J Cancer. 1999 Apr. 80(1-2):301-8. [Medline].
Leroy X, Zerimech F, Zini L, et al. MUC1 expression is correlated with nuclear grade and tumor progression in pT1 renal clear cell carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002 Jul. 118(1):47-51. [Medline].
Langner C, Ratschek M, Rehak P, Schips L, Zigeuner R. Expression of MUC1 (EMA) and E-cadherin in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic immunohistochemical analysis of 188 cases. Mod Pathol. 2004 Feb. 17(2):180-8. [Medline].
Pan CC, Chen PC, Ho DM. The diagnostic utility of MOC31, BerEP4, RCC marker and CD10 in the classification of renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma: an immunohistochemical analysis of 328 cases. Histopathology. 2004 Nov. 45(5):452-9. [Medline].
Avery AK, Beckstead J, Renshaw AA, Corless CL. Use of antibodies to RCC and CD10 in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Feb. 24(2):203-10. [Medline].
McGregor DK, Khurana KK, Cao C, et al. Diagnosing primary and metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the use of the monoclonal antibody ‘Renal Cell Carcinoma Marker’. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001 Dec. 25(12):1485-92. [Medline].
Young AN, de Oliveira Salles PG, Lim SD, et al. Beta defensin-1, parvalbumin, and vimentin: a panel of diagnostic immunohistochemical markers for renal tumors derived from gene expression profiling studies using cDNA microarrays. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 Feb. 27(2):199-205. [Medline].
Petit A, Castillo M, Santos M, Mellado B, Alcover JB, Mallofre C. KIT expression in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: comparative immunohistochemical analysis of KIT expression in different renal cell neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 May. 28(5):676-8. [Medline].
Miliaras D, Karasavvidou F, Papanikolaou A, Sioutopoulou D. KIT expression in fetal, normal adult, and neoplastic renal tissues. J Clin Pathol. 2004 May. 57(5):463-6. [Medline].
Tretiakova MS, Sahoo S, Takahashi M, et al. Expression of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase in papillary renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Jan. 28(1):69-76. [Medline].
Choi YD, Kim KS, Ryu S, et al. Claudin-7 is highly expressed in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma. J Korean Med Sci. 2007 Apr. 22(2):305-10. [Medline].
Allory Y, Bazille C, Vieillefond A, et al. Profiling and classification tree applied to renal epithelial tumours. Histopathology. 2008 Jan. 52(2):158-66. [Medline].
Zhou M, Roma A, Magi-Galluzzi C. The usefulness of immunohistochemical markers in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms. Clin Lab Med. 2005 Jun. 25(2):247-57. [Medline].
Eichelberg C, Chun FK, Bedke J, et al. Epithelial cell adhesion molecule is an independent prognostic marker in clear cell renal carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2013 Jun 15. 132(12):2948-55. [Medline].
Ilhan A, Neziri D, Maj M, et al. Expression of secretagogin in clear-cell renal cell carcinomas is associated with a high metastasis rate. Hum Pathol. 2011 May. 42(5):641-8. [Medline].
Wang HY, Mills SE. KIT and RCC are useful in distinguishing chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from the granular variant of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 May. 29(5):640-6. [Medline].
Khoury JD, Abrahams NA, Levin HS, MacLennan GT. The utility of epithelial membrane antigen and vimentin in the diagnosis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2002 Jun. 6(3):154-8. [Medline].
Salama ME, Worsham MJ, DePeralta-Venturina M. Malignant papillary renal tumors with extensive clear cell change: a molecular analysis by microsatellite analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003 Sep. 127(9):1176-81. [Medline].
Fuzesi L, Gunawan B, Bergmann F, Tack S, Braun S, Jakse G. Papillary renal cell carcinoma with clear cell cytomorphology and chromosomal loss of 3p. Histopathology. 1999 Aug. 35(2):157-61. [Medline].
Gobbo S, Eble JN, Maclennan GT, et al. Renal cell carcinomas with papillary architecture and clear cell components: the utility of immunohistochemical and cytogenetical analyses in differential diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Dec. 32(12):1780-6. [Medline].
Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Montironi R, Kirkali Z. 2004 WHO classification of the renal tumors of the adults. Eur Urol. 2006 May. 49(5):798-805. [Medline].
Eble JN, Bonsib SM. Extensively cystic renal neoplasms: cystic nephroma, cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma, multilocular cystic renal cell carcinoma, and cystic hamartoma of renal pelvis. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1998 Feb. 15(1):2-20. [Medline].
Adsay NV, Eble JN, Srigley JR, Jones EC, Grignon DJ. Mixed epithelial and stromal tumor of the kidney. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Jul. 24(7):958-70. [Medline].
Michal M, Hes O, Bisceglia M, et al. Mixed epithelial and stromal tumors of the kidney. A report of 22 cases. Virchows Arch. 2004 Oct. 445(4):359-67. [Medline].
Nikaido T, Nakano M, Kato M, Suzuki M, Ishikura H, Aizawa S. Characterization of smooth muscle components in renal angiomyolipomas: Histological and immunohistochemical comparison with renal capsular leiomyomas. Pathol Int. 2004 Jan. 54(1):1-9. [Medline].
Kovacs G. Molecular cytogenetics of renal cell tumors. Adv Cancer Res. 1993. 62:89-124. [Medline].
Gunawan B, Huber W, Holtrup M, et al. Prognostic impacts of cytogenetic findings in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: gain of 5q31-qter predicts a distinct clinical phenotype with favorable prognosis. Cancer Res. 2001 Nov 1. 61(21):7731-8. [Medline].
Hoglund M, Gisselsson D, Soller M, Hansen GB, Elfving P, Mitelman F. Dissecting karyotypic patterns in renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of the accumulated cytogenetic data. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2004 Aug. 153(1):1-9. [Medline].
Monzon FA, Alvarez K, Peterson L, et al. Chromosome 14q loss defines a molecular subtype of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma associated with poor prognosis. Mod Pathol. 2011 Nov. 24(11):1470-9. [Medline].
Shen C, Beroukhim R, Schumacher SE, et al. Genetic and functional studies implicate HIF1α as a 14q kidney cancer suppressor gene. Cancer Discov. 2011 Aug. 1(3):222-35. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Akhtar M, Tulbah A, Kardar AH, Ali MA. Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: the chromophobe connection. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997 Oct. 21(10):1188-95. [Medline].
Dal Cin P, Sciot R, Van Poppel H, Balzarini P, Roskams T, Van den Berghe H. Chromosome changes in sarcomatoid renal carcinomas are different from those in renal cell carcinomas. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2002 Apr 1. 134(1):38-40. [Medline].
Green FL, Page D, Fleming ID, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002. [Full Text].
Lam JS, Belldegrun AS, Pantuck AJ. Long-term outcomes of the surgical management of renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol. 2006 Aug. 24(3):255-66. [Medline].
Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG. Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma–a meta-analysis and review. J Urol. 2008 Apr. 179(4):1227-33; discussion 1233-4. [Medline].
Costa LJ, Drabkin HA. Renal cell carcinoma: new developments in molecular biology and potential for targeted therapies. Oncologist. 2007 Dec. 12(12):1404-15. [Medline].
Cheng L, Zhang S, MacLennan GT, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R. Molecular and cytogenetic insights into the pathogenesis, classification, differential diagnosis, and prognosis of renal epithelial neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 2009 Jan. 40(1):10-29. [Medline].
Schultz L, Chaux A, Albadine R, et al. Immunoexpression status and prognostic value of mTOR and hypoxia-induced pathway members in primary and metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Oct. 35(10):1549-56. [Medline].
Ronald J Cohen, MB, BCh, PhD, FRCPA, FFPATH Director of Pathology, Uropath Pty Ltd; Clinical Professor, School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia, Australia
Ronald J Cohen, MB, BCh, PhD, FRCPA, FFPATH is a member of the following medical societies: Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Liang Cheng, MD Professor of Pathology and Urology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine; Chief, Genitourinary Pathology Service, Indiana University Health
Liang Cheng, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for Cancer Research, American Urological Association, College of American Pathologists, United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, International Society of Urological Pathology, Arthur Purdy Stout Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Pathology of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
Research & References of Pathology of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma |A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source
0 Comments