Evaluation of american urological association renal cell carcinoma risk groups for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP58-02 EVALUATION OF AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION RENAL CELL CARCINOMA RISK GROUPS FOR CHROMOPHOBE RENAL CELL CARCINOMA Cameron J. Britton, Christine M. Lohse, Andrew Zganjar, John C. Cheville, R. Houston Thompson, Bradley C. Leibovich, Stephen A. Boorjian, Vidit Sharma, and Aaron M. Potretzke Cameron J. BrittonCameron J. Britton More articles by this author , Christine M. LohseChristine M. Lohse More articles by this author , Andrew ZganjarAndrew Zganjar More articles by this author , John C. ChevilleJohn C. Cheville More articles by this author , R. Houston ThompsonR. Houston Thompson More articles by this author , Bradley C. LeibovichBradley C. Leibovich More articles by this author , Stephen A. BoorjianStephen A. Boorjian More articles by this author , Vidit SharmaVidit Sharma More articles by this author , and Aaron M. PotretzkeAaron M. Potretzke More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003311.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In patients after surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma, prognostic models have been developed for progression-free (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Notably, chromophobe RCC (chRCC) is unable to be classified by the American Urological Association (AUA) risk stratification system, as histologic grading of chRCC is not currently recommended. We sought to compare the Mayo risk stratification system (Leibovich 2018, Eur Urol) with three modified versions of the AUA RCC risk stratification system for chRCC. METHODS: We queried the Mayo Clinic Nephrectomy Registry to identify patients treated with radical or partial nephrectomy for unilateral, sporadic, M0, chRCC from 1970 to 2012. AUA risk groups were defined using reported criteria excluding grade. Modified AUA risk groups included two proposed chRCC grading systems, including the Paner grading system and the Mayo extension of the Paner grade (Avulova 2021, Eur Urol). PFS and CSS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictive ability was summarized using c-indexes from Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients with chRCC were identified. PFS and CSS rates at 120 months after surgery were 84% and 90%, respectively. PFS rates using AUA risk groups, ignoring grade, are summarized in Figure 1a, while PFS rates using the Mayo risk groups are presented in Figure 1b. C-indexes for AUA and Mayo risk groups were similar at 0.76 and 0.75, respectively, for PFS, and 0.77 and 0.76, respectively for CSS. Comparisons of the three modified AUA risk stratification systems with and without grading systems are presented in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS: The modified AUA and Mayo risk stratification systems have robust c-indexes for PFS and CSS in patients with chRCC. These models can be used to counsel patients based on the final pathologic analysis. Incorporation of proposed chRCC grading systems rarely results in re-stratification. Source of Funding: NA © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e794 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Cameron J. Britton More articles by this author Christine M. Lohse More articles by this author Andrew Zganjar More articles by this author John C. Cheville More articles by this author R. Houston Thompson More articles by this author Bradley C. Leibovich More articles by this author Stephen A. Boorjian More articles by this author Vidit Sharma More articles by this author Aaron M. Potretzke More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...