Correlation of Mean Nuclear Major Diameter Based Nuclear Morphometry Assessed by Image Analysis System and Fuhrman Nuclear Grading with Clinicopathologic Prognostic Parameters in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Zeliha Esin Çelik 1 * , Mustafa Cihat Avunduk 2
More Detail
1 Assistant Professor, Selcuk University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Konya, TURKEY
2 Professor, Necmettin Erbakan University Meram Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Konya, TURKEY
* Corresponding Author
EUR J BASIC MED SCI, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp. 44-49. https://doi.org/10.21601/ejbms/9201
OPEN ACCESS
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

To evaluate mean nuclear major diameter (MNMjD) by using an image analysis system and to compare MNMjD-based nuclear morphometry with Fuhrman grading system in terms of correlation with clinicopathologic prognostic parameters in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Ninety cases diagnosed as RCC were examined in terms of Furhman nuclear grade, histological subtype, renal capsular invasion, perinephric fat invasion, and renal vein and/or ureter invasion. MNMjD was assessed using a computer-assisted image analysis system on histological sections. In addition to the classic system, Fuhrman nuclear grades were examined by dividing into low grade and high grade groups. The correlation between parameters was evaluated statistically. Nuclear morphometry based on MNMjD has higher correlation with clinicopathologic prognostic parameters compared with the Fuhrman nuclear grading system, including individual grades and low grade and high grade groups. Nuclear morphometry is a valuable method in RCC grading and can be used as an alternative system considering its correlation with clinicopathologic prognostic parameters.
Keywords: renal cell carcinoma, nuclear morphometry, prognosis, image analysis

CITATION

Çelik ZE, Avunduk MC. Correlation of Mean Nuclear Major Diameter Based Nuclear Morphometry Assessed by Image Analysis System and Fuhrman Nuclear Grading with Clinicopathologic Prognostic Parameters in Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur J Basic Med Sci. 2013;3(3):44-9. https://doi.org/10.21601/ejbms/9201

REFERENCES

  • Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin 1999; 49: 8-31.
  • Laber DA. Risk factors, classification and staging of renal cell cancer. Med Oncol 2006; 23: 443-54.
  • Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI et al. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press, 2004; 10: 43.
  • Ozer E, Yorukoglu K, Sagol O et al. Prognostic significance of nuclear morphometry in renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2002; 90: 20-5.
  • Yorukoglu K, Aktas S, Güler C et al. Volume-weighted mean nuclear volume in renal cell carcinoma. Urology 1998; 52: 44-7.
  • Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1982; 6: 655-63.
  • Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001; 166: 63-7.
  • Zisman A, Pantuk AJ, Dorey F. Improved prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an integrated staging system. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:1 649-57.
  • Maldazys JD, De Kernion JB. Prognostic factors in metastatic renal carcinoma. J Urol 1986; 136(2): 376-9.
  • Pascual D, Borque A. Epidemiology of kidney cancer. Adv Urol 2008; 782381
  • Godley PA, Ataga KI. Renal cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2000; 12: 260-4.
  • Işik H, Sezgin E, Avunduk MC. A new software program for pathological data analysis. Comput Biol Med 2010; 40(8): 715-22.
  • Lang H, Lindner V, de Fromont M et al. Multicenter determination of optimal interobserver agreement using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma: Assessment of 241 patients with > 15-year follow-up. Cancer 2005; 103(3): 625-9.
  • Skinner DG, Calvin RB, Vermillion CD et al. Diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma: A clinical and pathologic study of 309 cases. Cancer 1971; 28: 1165-77.
  • Uno M, Fujimoto Y, Takada T et al. Prognostic factors for survival of patients after curative surgery for renal cell carcinoma: Multivariate analysis of 482 cases. Int J Clin Oncol 2004; 9(6): 510-4.
  • Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, de Fromont M et al. Prognostic value of nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 1995; 76(12): 2543-9.
  • Minervini R, Minervini A, Fontana N et al. Evaluation of the 1997 tumor, nodes and metastases classification of renal cell carcinoma: Experience in 172 patients. BJU Int 2000; 86(3): 199-202.
  • Giberti C, Oneto F, Martorana G et al. Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Long-term results and prognostic factors on a series of 328 cases. Eur Urol 1997; 31: 40-8.
  • Klatte T, Chung J, Leppert JT et al. Prognostic relevance of capsular involvement and collecting system invasion in stage I and II renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2007; 99(4): 821-4.
  • Delahunt B, Sika-Paotonu D, Bethwaite PB et al. Fuhrman grading is not appropriate for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2007; 31(6): 957-60.
  • Novara G, Martignoni G, Artibani W et al. Grading systems in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2007; 177: 430-6.
  • Artacho-Pérula E, Roldán-Villalobos R, Martínez-Cuevas JF. Value of volume weighted mean nuclear volume in grading and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Pathol 1994; 47(4): 324-8.
  • Paner GP, Amin MB, Alvarado-Cabrero I et al. A novel tumor grading scheme for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: prognostic utility and comparison with Fuhrman nuclear grade. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34(9): 1233-40.
  • Montironi R, Santinelli A, Pomante R et al. Morphometric index of adult renal cell carcinoma. Comparison with the Fuhrman grading system. Virchows Arch 2000; 437(1): 82-9.
  • Tosi P, Luzi P, Baak JP et al. Nuclear morphometry as an important prognostic factor in stage I renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 1986; 58: 2512-8.