Intraobserver and Interobserver Variability of Fuhrman and Modified Fuhrman Grading Systems for Conventional Renal Cell Carcinoma

Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences

Volumn 25, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 596-600

  Bektas, Sibel ^a   Bahadir, Burak ^a   Kandemir, Nilufer Onak ^a   Barut, Figen ^a   Gul, Aylin Ege ^b   Ozdamar, Sukru Oguz ^a  

^a ZONGULDAK KARAELMAS UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b Dr Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Research and Training Hospital   (Turkey)

Author keywords

conventional renal cell carcinoma; Fuhrman grading; interobserver variability; intraobserver variability; modified Fuhrman grading

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; KIDNEY CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATHOLOGIST; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARCINOMA, RENAL CELL; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70350498673     PISSN: 1607551X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70562-5     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Eble J.N., Togashi K., and Pisani P. Renal cell carcinoma. In: Eble J.N., Sauter G., Epstein J.I., and Sesterhenn I.A. (Eds). World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs (2004), IARC Press, Lyon 12-14
2. Kontak J.A., and Campbell S.C. Prognostic factors of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 30 (2003) 467-480
3. Novara G., Mortignoni G., Artibani W., et al. Grading systems in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 177 (2007) 430-436
4. Gudbjartsson T., Hardarson S., Petursdottir V., et al. Histological subtyping and nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma and their implications for survival: a retrospective nation-wide study of 629 patients. Eur Urol 48 (2005) 593-600
5. Rioux-Leclercq N., Karakiewicz P.I., Trinh Q.D., et al. Prognostic ability of simplified nuclear grading of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 109 (2007) 868-874
6. Bostwick D.G., and Murphy G.P. Diagnosis and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma: highlights from an international consensus workshop. Semin Urol Oncol 16 (1998) 46-52
7. Medeiros L.C., Jones E.C., Aizawa S., et al. Grading of renal cell carcinoma. Workgroup no. 2. Cancer 80 (1997) 990-991
8. Fuhrman S.A., Lasky L.C., and Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6 (1982) 655-663
9. Ficarra V., Martignoni G., Maffei N., et al. Original and reviewed nuclear grading according to the Fuhrman system. A multivariate analysis of 388 patients with conventional renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 103 (2005) 68-75
10. Lang H., Lindner V., de Fromont M., et al. Multicenter determination of optimal interobserver agreement using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Assessment of 241 patients with > 15-year follow up. Cancer 103 (2005) 625-629
11. Al-Aynati M., Chen V., Salama S., et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability using the Fuhrman Grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 127 (2003) 593-596
12. nd edition (1981), Wiley, New York
13. th edition (2006), Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont
14. th edition (2002), Springer, New York
15. Ficarra V., Galfano A., Verhoest G., et al. Prognostic factors and staging systems for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol Suppl 6 (2007) 623-629
16. Bretheau D., Lechevallier E., de Fromont M., et al. Prognostic value of nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 76 (1995) 2543-2549
17. Ficarra V., Righetti R., Martignoni G., et al. Prognostic value of renal cell carcinoma nuclear grading: multivariate analysis of 333 cases. Urol Int 67 (2001) 130-134
18. Ficarra V., Righetti R., Pilloni S., et al. Prognostic factors in patients with renal cell carcinoma: retrospective analysis of 675 cases. Eur Urol 41 (2002) 190-198
19. Delahunt B., Bethwaite P.B., and Nacey J.N. Outcome prediction for renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of prognostic factors for tumours divided according to histological subtype. Pathology 39 (2007) 459-465
20. Di Silverio F., Casale P., Colella D., et al. Independent value of tumor size and DNA ploidy for the prediction of disease progression in patients with organ-confined renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 88 (2000) 835-843
21. Lohse C.M., Blute M.L., Zincke H., et al. Comparison of standardized and nonstandardized nuclear grade of renal cell carcinoma to predict outcome among 2,042 patients. Am J Clin Pathol 118 (2002) 877-886
22. Lanigan D., Conroy R., Barry-Walsh C., et al. A comparative analysis of grading systems in renal adenocarcinoma. Histopathology 24 (1994) 473-476
23. Letourneux H., Lindner V., Lang H., et al. Reproducibility of Fuhrman nuclear grade: advantages of a two-grade system. Prog Urol 16 (2006) 281-285
24. Yoo C., Song C., Hong J.H., et al. Prognostic significance of perinephric fat infiltration and tumor size in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 180 (2008) 486-491
25. Usubutun A., Uygur M.C., Ayhan A., et al. Comparison of grading systems for estimating the prognosis of renal cell carcinoma. Int Urol Nephrol 30 (1998) 391-397