I n developing this proposal, the authors applied these principles: 1. The classification must be based on morphology yet be in line with the genetic facts as they are presently understood, and in line with the evolution of the neoplasms. 2. The terms should be simple, unambiguous, and reflect a sa
Grading of renal cell carcinoma : Workgroup No. 2
β Scribed by L. Jeffrey Medeiros; Edward C. Jones; Shigeo Aizawa; Hector C. Aldape; John C. Cheville; Neal S. Goldstein; Irina A. Lubensky; Jae Ro; Jonathan Shanks; Anna Pacelli; Soon-Hee Jung
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1997
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 35 KB
- Volume
- 80
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0008-543X
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
and papillary renal cell carcinoma. The data supporting the validity of nuclear grading for chromophobe carcinoma is not well estab-Presented at ''Diagnosis and Prognosis of Renal lished, but it seems reasonable to grade these tumors for ongoing
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
Category III, the final category applies to those factors that show some promise but do not meet the above criteria.
cause they may be impractical, expensive, or unproven. Group II is an intermediate group expected to be available in the near future and Presented at ''Diagnosis and Prognosis of Renal characterized by greater requirements for time, money, and other Cell Carcinoma: 1997 Workshop,'' Rochester, resour
## BACKGROUND. The grading of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has a long history. Currently, there are several grading systems in use throughout the world. There is no consensus regarding which grading system is optimal. ## METHODS. A review of the patient outcome cutpoints of several RCC grading sy