Survival pattern of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients according to WHO/ISUP grade: a long-term multi-institutional study.

The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) grading of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is classified from grade 1-4, regardless of subtype. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (2022) state that if there is an adverse pathological feature, such as grade 3 or higher RCC in stage 1 patients, more rigorous follow-up imaging is recommended. However, the RCC guidelines do not provide specific treatment or follow-up policies by tumor grade. Therefore, this study attempted to find out whether tumor grade affects survival rates in patients with metastatic RCC. The Korean Renal Cancer Study Group (KRoCS) database includes 3108 patients diagnosed with metastatic RCC between September 1992 and February 2017, with treatment methods, progression, and survival data collected from 11 tertiary hospitals. To obtain information on survival rates or causes of death, we utilized the Korea National Statistical Office database and institutional medical records. Data were accessed for research purpose on June, 2023. We then reviewed these sources to gather comprehensive and reliable data on the outcomes of our study cohort. This database was retrospectively analyzed, and out of 3108 metastatic RCC patients, 911 had been identified as WHO/ISUP grade. Grades were classified into either a low-grade (WHO/ISUP grade 1-2) or a high-grade group (WHO/ISUP grade 3-4). The patients were then analyzed related to progression and overall survival (OS). In metastatic clear cell RCC patients, the 1-year OS rate was 69.4% and the median OS was 17.0 months (15.5-18.5) followed up to 203.6 months. When comparing the patient groups, 119 low-grade and 873 high-grade cases were identified. No baseline difference was observed between the two groups, except that the high-grade group had a higher ECOG 1 ratio of 50.4% compared with 34.5% for the low-grade group (p = 0.009). There was a significant difference in OS between high-grade and low-grade groups. OS was 16.0 months (14.6-17.4) in the high-grade group and 28.0 months (21.1-34.9) in the low-grade group (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) rates with 9.0 months (8.0-10.0) for the high-grade group and 10.0 months (6.8-13.2) for the low-grade group (p = 0.377) in first-line treatment. In multivariable analysis, WHO/ISUP grade was a risk factor (HR = 1.511[1.135-2.013], p = 0.005) that influenced the OS. In conclusion, WHO/ISUP grade is a major data source that can be used as a ubiquitous marker of metastatic RCC in pre-IO era. Depending on whether the RCC is high or low grade, the follow-up schedule will need to be tailored according to grade, with higher-grade patients needing more active treatment as it can not only affect the OS in the previously known localized/locoregional recurrence but also the metastatic RCC patient.

Stratification of Contemporary Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Published data have shown heterogeneous outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer. Thus, we tried to identify more precise risk stratification system for contemporary high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Classifying patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups, we reviewed data of 1,905 men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution from 2006 to 2013. For our analyses, high-risk prostate cancers meeting at least one of two following factors were categorized as unfavorable high-risk prostate cancer: biopsy primary Gleason pattern 5 and/or multiple (≥2) high-risk criteria present. All other men with high-risk prostate cancer were designated as having favorable high-risk disease. Postoperative outcomes, including biochemical recurrence-free survivals were assessed and compared via log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, primary Gleason 5 pattern on biopsy (p = 0.008) and multiple (≥2) high-risk criteria (p < 0.001) were observed to be independent predictors of the risk of biochemical recurrence amongst high-risk group undergoing RP. Favorable high-risk prostate cancer group showed a significantly higher 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival than unfavorable high-risk group (56.35 vs. 18.75 %; log-rank test: p < 0.001). Favorable high-risk group demonstrated significantly lower 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival than intermediate-risk group (56.07 vs. 82.05 %; log-rank test: p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant heterogeneity existed in biochemical outcomes of contemporary patients with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent definitive RP. According to primary Gleason pattern and number of high-risk criteria present, high-risk group should be stratified further into favorable and unfavorable disease.