Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  672 692 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 672 692 Next Page
Page Background

perioperative care, and treatment options over time.

However, all patients in this study had uniform pathologic

review of their specimens, and we demonstrate utility of the

SSIGN score in the subset of contemporary patients managed

with both RN and PN. Further, to our knowledge, this work

represents the largest single experience and longest follow-

up of patients evaluated with the SSIGN score.

5.

Conclusions

We found that the SSIGN score, as originally described and

using the original patients, retains its predictive accuracy

with longer follow-up and incorporating the competing risk

of non-RCC death. We also noted among contemporarily

managed patients, both with RN and PN, that the SSIGN

score is a valuable prognostic tool for ccRCC. Finally, we

observed improvements in survival for ccRCC patient over

time, even after controlling for the SSIGN score. These

findings support continued utilization of the SSIGN score

and serve to guide patient counseling following surgical

management of ccRCC.

Author contributions:

R. Houston Thompson had full access to all the

data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and

the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design:

Parker, Frank, Lohse, Thompson.

Acquisition of data:

Lohse.

Analysis and interpretation of data:

Parker, Lohse, Thompson.

Drafting of the manuscript:

Parker, Lohse, Thompson.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:

Parker,

Cheville, Frank, Zaid, Lohse, Boorjian, Leibovich, Thompson.

Statistical analysis:

Lohse.

Obtaining funding:

None.

Administrative, technical, or material support:

None.

Supervision:

Thompson.

Other:

None.

Financial disclosures:

R. Houston Thompson certifies that all conflicts of

interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and

affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the

manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultan-

cies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties,

or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:

This publication was made

possible in part by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Grant

UL1 TR000135 from the National Center for Advancing Translational

Sciences, a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its

contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be

found, in the online version, at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2016.05.034 .

References

[1]

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;168:2395–400.

[2]

Lau WK, Cheville JC, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Zincke H. Prognostic features of pathologic stage T1 renal cell carcinoma after radical nephrectomy. Urology 2002;59:532–7.

[3]

Sengupta S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, et al. Histologic coagulative tumor necrosis as a prognostic indicator of renal cell carcinoma aggressiveness. Cancer 2005;104:511–20.

[4]

Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, Lohse CM, et al. Dynamic outcome prediction in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy: the D-SSIGN score. J Urol 2007;177: 477–80

.

[5]

Ficarra V, Novara G, Galfano A, et al. The ‘Stage, Size, Grade and Necrosis’ score is more accurate than the University of California Los Angeles Integrated Staging System for predicting cancer-spe- cific survival in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2009;103:165–70.

[6]

Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Lohse C, et al. External validation of the Mayo Clinic Stage, Size, Grade and Necrosis (SSIGN) score to predict cancer specific survival using a European series of conventional renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2006;175:1235–9.

[7]

Fujii Y, Saito K, Iimura Y, et al. External validation of the Mayo Clinic cancer specific survival score in a Japanese series of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2008;180:1290–5, discussion 1295–6.

[8]

Zigeuner R, Hutterer G, Chromecki T, et al. External validation of the Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis (SSIGN) score for clear- cell renal cell carcinoma in a single European centre applying routine pathology. Eur Urol 2010;57:102–11

.

[9]

Escudier B, Porta C, Schmidinger M, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol/ESMO 2014;25(Suppl 3), iii49-56.

[10]

Hakimi AA, Ostrovnaya I, Jacobsen A, et al. Validation and genomic interrogation of the MET variant rs11762213 as a predictor of adverse outcomes in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2016;122:402–10

.

[11]

Ho TH, Kapur P, Joseph RW, et al. Loss of histone H3 lysine 36 trimethylation is associated with an increased risk of renal cell carcinoma-specific death. Mod Pathol 2016;29:34–42

.

[12]

Joseph RW, Kapur P, Serie DJ, et al. Loss of BAP1 protein expression is an independent marker of poor prognosis in patients with low- risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2014;120:1059–67

.

[13]

Joseph RW, Kapur P, Serie DJ, et al. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes identified by BAP1 and PBRM1 expression. J Urol 2016; 195:180–7

.

[14]

Lucca I, de Martino M, Hofbauer SL, Zamani N, Shariat SF, Klatte T. Comparison of the prognostic value of pretreatment measurements of systemic inflammatory response in patients undergoing curative resection of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 2015; 33: 2045–52

.

[15]

Parker AS, Eckel-Passow JE, Serie D, et al. Higher expression of topoisomerase II alpha is an independent marker of increased risk of cancer-specific death in patients with clear cell renal cell carci- noma. Eur Urol 2014;66:929–35

.

[16]

Kane CJ, Mallin K, Ritchey J, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Renal cell cancer stage migration: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer 2008;113:78–83.

[17]

Macleod LC, Tykodi SS, Holt SK, et al. Trends in metastatic kidney cancer survival from the cytokine to the targeted therapy era. Urology 2015;86:262–8

.

[18]

Schiffmann J, Bianchi M, Sun M, Becker A. Trends in surgical man- agement of T1 renal cell carcinoma. Curr Urol Rep 2014;15:383

.

[19]

Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:1471–4

.

E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 6 6 5 – 6 7 3

672