Impact of tumor size on the clinical outcomes of patients with Robson Stage I renal cell carcinoma

✍ Scribed by Naoki Kanomata

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1999
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 52 KB
• Volume: 86
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0008-543X
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990801)86:3<545::aid-cncr26>3.0.co;2-p

✦ Synopsis

Impact of Tumor Size on the Clinical

Outcomes of Patients with Robson Stage I Renal Cell Carcinoma I read the report by Kinouchi et al., 1 in which they concluded that the tumor grading of renal cell carcinoma was not predictive of the survival of Robson Stage I patients. This does not mean that the three-grading system is worthless; the authors simply showed that the grading system of the Japanese General Rule for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Renal Cell Carcinoma 2 is not useful in the study of Robson Stage I renal cell carcinoma. The Japanese Rule 2 states that renal cell carcinoma should be classified according to the quantitatively dominant grade. Kinouchi et al. 1 omitted this explanation from their article. This "dominant rule" is obviously distinct from the other grading systems, according to which renal tumor grading is decided by the highest grade. 3,4 I am afraid that their report might mislead international readers. The Japanese General Rule for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Renal Cell Carcinoma 2 was made in 1992. Its classification is different from "modern classification" 5-7 and even from the classification criteria of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. 3 Kinouchi et al. 1 nicely demonstrated the limitation of the Japanese Rule. 2 I would like to announce that it is time for the Japanese to throw away their old-fashioned Rule. 2 The recently published protocol of the Cancer Committee of the College of American Pathologists 8 has greater possibilities.