• 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: 12771281.
  • 3
    Guinan P, Sobin LH, Algaba F, et al. TNM staging of renal cell carcinoma. Workgroup No. 3. Cancer. 1997; 80: 992993.
  • 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: 5458.
  • 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: 354361.
  • 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: 19301933.
  • 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: 453456.
  • 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: 658664.
  • 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: 11031106.
  • 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: 288291.
  • 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: 13561359.
  • 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: 9981002.
  • 16
    Green LK, Ayala AG, Ro JY, et al. Role of nuclear grading in stage I renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1989; 34: 310315.
  • 17
    Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, de Fromont M,et al. Prognostic value of nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 1995; 76: 25432549.
  • 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: 130134.