Original Article

You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Reassessment of the 1997 TNM classification system for renal cell carcinoma

A 5-cm T1/T2 cutoff is a better predictor of clinical outcome

  1. James M. Elmore M.D.,
  2. Keith T. Kadesky M.D.,
  3. Kenneth S. Koeneman M.D.,
  4. Arthur I. Sagalowsky M.D.†,*

Article first published online: 16 OCT 2003

DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11806

Issue

Cancer

Cancer

Volume 98, Issue 11, pages 2329–2334, 1 December 2003

Additional Information

How to Cite

Elmore, J. M., Kadesky, K. T., Koeneman, K. S. and Sagalowsky, A. I. (2003), Reassessment of the 1997 TNM classification system for renal cell carcinoma. Cancer, 98: 2329–2334. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11806

Author Information

  1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

  1. †

    Fax: (214) 648-8786

*Department of Urology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75235-9110

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 17 NOV 2003
  2. Article first published online: 16 OCT 2003
  3. Manuscript Revised: 22 AUG 2003
  4. Manuscript Accepted: 22 AUG 2003
  5. Manuscript Received: 11 MAR 2003

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (172K)

REFERENCES

  • 1
    SobinLH, WittekindCH, editors. TNM classification of malignant tumours, 5th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.
  • 2
    Javidan J, Stricker HJ, Tamboli P, et al. Prognostic significance of the 1997 TNM classification of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1999; 162: 1277–1281.
  • 3
    Guinan P, Sobin LH, Algaba F, et al. TNM staging of renal cell carcinoma. Workgroup No. 3. Cancer. 1997; 80: 992–993.
    Direct Link:
  • 4
    Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Chao D, et al. Reevaluation of the 1997 TNM classification for renal cell carcinoma: T1 and T2 cutoff point at 4.5 rather than 7 cm. better correlates with clinical outcome. J Urol. 2001; 166: 54–58.
  • 5
    Gettman MT, Blute ML, Spotts B, et al. Pathologic staging of renal cell carcinoma. Significance of tumor classification with the 1997 TNM staging system. Cancer. 2001; 91: 354–361.
    Direct Link:
  • 6
    GreenFL, PageDL, FlemingID, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
  • 7
    Hafez KS, Fergany AF, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and TNM staging. J Urol. 1999; 162: 1930–1933.
  • 8
    Krejci KG, Frank I, Blute ML, et al. Grade and size-specific outcomes for stage T1 renal cell carcinoma after nephron sparing surgery [abstract 651]. J Urol. 2001; 165: 158a.
  • 9
    Cheville JC, Blute ML, Zincke H, et al. Stage pT1 conventional (clear cell) renal cell carcinoma: pathologic features associated with cancer specific survival. J Urol. 2001; 166: 453–456.
  • 10
    Delahunt B, Kittelson JM, McCredie MRE, et al. Prognostic importance of tumor size for localized conventional (clear cell) renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2002; 94: 658–664.
    Direct Link:
  • 11
    Igarashi T, Tobe T, Nakatsu H, et al. The impact of a 4 cm cutoff point for stratification of T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma after radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2001; 165: 1103–1106.
  • 12
    Shinohara N, Harabayashi J, Koyanagi T. Stage-specific followup protocol after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: could we follow the T1b patients by a same followup protocol of T1a patients? [abstract 662]. J Urol. 2001; 165: 161a.
  • 13
    Steinback F, Stockle M, Hohenfellner R. Clinical experience with nephron-sparing surgery in the presence of a normal contralateral kidney. Semin Urol Oncol. 1995; 13: 288–291.
  • 14
    Matin SF, Gill IS, Worley S, Novick AC. Outcome of laparoscopic radical and open partial nephrectomy for the sporadic 4 cm or less renal tumor with a normal contralateral kidney. J Urol. 2002; 169: 1356–1359.
  • 15
    Delakas D, Karyotis I, Daskalopoulos G, et al. Nephron-sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma with a normal contralateral kidney: a European three-center experience. Urology. 2002; 60: 998–1002.
  • 16
    Green LK, Ayala AG, Ro JY, et al. Role of nuclear grading in stage I renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1989; 34: 310–315.
  • 17
    Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, de Fromont M,et al. Prognostic value of nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 1995; 76: 2543–2549.
    Direct Link:
  • 18
    Ficarra V, Righetti R, Martignoni G, et al. Prognostic value of renal cell carcinoma nuclear grading: multivariate analysis of 333 cases. Urol Int. 2001; 67: 130–134.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (172K)