A nomogram based on TFE3 IHC results and clinical factors as a preliminary screening scheme for TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: TFE3 immunohistochemistry (TFE3-IHC) is controversial in the diagnosis of TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-rearranged RCC). This study is to investigate the accuracy and sensitivity of IHC and establish a predictive model to diagnose TFE3-rearranged RCC. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed by collecting IHC and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results from 228 patients. IHC results were evaluated using three scoring systems. Scoring system 1 is graded based on nuclear staining intensity, scoring system 2 is graded based on the percentage of stained tumor cell nuclei, and scoring system 3 is graded based on both the nuclear staining intensity and the percentage. We collected patients' IHC results and clinical information. Important variables were screened based on univariate logistic regression analysis. Then, independent risk factors were established through multivariate logistic regression, and a nomogram model was constructed. The model was validated in internal test set and external validation set. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve), calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were generated to assess discriminative ability of the model. RESULTS: The accuracy of IHC based on three scoring systems were 0.829, 0.772, and 0.807, respectively. The model included four factors including age, gender, lymph node metastasis and IHC results. Area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.935 for the training set, 0.934 for the internal test set, 0.933 for all 228 patients, and 0.916 for the external validation set. CONCLUSIONS: TFE3 IHC has high accuracy in the diagnosis of TFE3-rearranged RCC. Clinical information such as age and lymph node metastasis are independent risk factors, which can be used as a supplement to the results of TFE3 IHC. This study confirms the value of IHC in the diagnosis of TFE3-rearranged RCC. The accuracy of the diagnosis can be improved by incorporating IHC with other clinical risk factors.

The impact of tumor size on the survival of patients with small renal masses: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) with delayed intervention has gained acceptance as a management strategy for small renal masses (SRMs). However, during AS, there is a risk of tumor growth. Thus, we aim to investigate whether tumor growth in patients with SRMs leads to tumor progress. METHODS: In this study, we enrolled 16,070 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database with T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) between 2004 and 2017. The 16,070 patients were divided into three groups: 10,526 in the partial nephrectomy (PN) group, 2768 in the local ablation (LA) group, and 2776 in the AS group. Associations of tumor size with all-cause and cancer-specific mortality were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Four tumor size categories were delineated (≤1, >1-2, >2-3, and > 3-4 cm in diameter), and 10-year all-cause and cancer-specific mortality both significantly increased with increasing tumor size in the PN, LA, and AS groups (all p < 0.05). Tumors were substaged based on diameter: T1aA (≤2 cm) and T1aB (>2-4 cm). All-cause and cancer-specific mortality were significantly higher in T1aB tumors than T1aA tumors in each group (hazard ratio = 1.395 and 1.538, respectively; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor growth relates to worse prognosis of T1a RCC, and 2 cm serves as a size threshold that is prognostically relevant for patients with T1a RCC. Because of the lack of accurate predictors of tumor growth rate, AS for patients with SRMs incurs a risk of tumor progression.