Application and comparison of Fuhrman nuclear grading system with the novel tumor grading system for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and its correlation with disease-specific events

• Main Authors: Akash Pramod Sali, Ganesh K Bahirwade, Ganesh Bakshi, Gagan Prakash, Amit Joshi, Sangeeta B Desai, Santosh Menon
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2021-01-01
• Series: Indian Journal of Urology
• Online Access: http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2021;volume=37;issue=2;spage=147;epage=152;aulast=Sali
• ISSN: 0970-1591; 1998-3824

Introduction: The grading system of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) is not well established. In this study, we aimed to compare the application of Fuhrman nuclear grade (FNG) with the novel chromophobe tumor grade (CTG). We also evaluated the correlation of these two grading systems with the clinical outcome. Materials and Methods: Consecutive cases of ChRCC diagnosed on nephrectomy during 2005–2014 were identified. The clinical details of the patients were retrieved. Histopathology slides were reviewed and the nuclear grading was assigned using standard FNG and the CTG system. The CTG and FNG gradings were correlated with clinical outcome. Results: A total of 80 cases were retrieved. Distribution of FNG was as follows: FNG-1, 1 (1.3%); FNG-2, 23 (28.3%); FNG-3, 44 (55.0%); and FNG-4, 12 (15%). CTG distribution was as follows: CTG-1, 48 (60.0%); CTG-2, 20 (25.0%); and CTG-3 12 (15.0%). Follow-up data was available in 46 cases; the median follow-up was 23.9 months (range 1–96.4 months). The median time to recurrence/metastasis was 17.2 months (range 3.2–31.2 months). Mean disease-free survival (DFS) was 68.5 months. Both CTG (P < 0.001) and FNG (P = 0.001) correlated with DFS; however, only CTG retained this significance when only the nonsarcomatous cases were analyzed. On receiver operating characteristics curve analysis, CTG had higher predictive accuracy for DFS for the entire group, while FNG lost the statistical significance when the nonsarcomatous cases were analyzed. CTG (P = 0.001) but not FNG (P = 0.106) correlated with the disease-specific adverse events in non-sarcomatous cases. Conclusions: It is possible to apply CTG in ChRCC. It is a better predictor of DFS and disease-specific adverse events. CTG is more appropriate and applicable than the FNG in grading ChRCC.