Urologic Clinics of North America

Contemporary Understanding and Management of Renal Cortical Tumors
Preface
Paul Russo, MD, FACS
In 2008 there will be an estimated 54,390 new

cases of renal tumors and 13,010 deaths attributable to renal cancer in the United States. Compared with 1971, this represents a fivefold increase
in the incidence and twofold increase in the
mortality of renal cancer. Associated risk factors
include hypertension, obesity, and African American race. Despite the abdominal imagingrelated
tumor size and stage migration observed over
the past decade and increased surgical treatment
for all renal tumors, particularly the smaller ones,
epidemiologic evidence suggests an increase in
all stages of renal cancer, including the advanced
and metastatic cases. Approximately 30% to 40%
of renal tumor patients either present with or later
develop metastatic disease. This treatment disconnect may be a result of unaccounted-for etiologic factors increasing the incidence of all renal
cortical tumors. The increased treatment and
cure of small, incidentally discovered renal tumors,
greater than 90% of which must be considered
nonlethal in nature, does not seem to offset the increased mortality caused by the more advanced
and metastatic tumors.
Over the last decade several factors working in
parallel have changed our approach to the management of both clinically localized and advanced
renal cortical tumors. The oncologic effectiveness
of partial nephrectomy for tumors of 7 cm or less
coupled with the medical benefits of renal functional preservation, which delays or prevents the
onset of chronic kidney disease (CKD), has been
clearly elucidated. For advanced disease, the enhanced understanding of the molecular mechanisms responsible for the development of
malignant renal tumors has led to the development
of systemic agents that have been highly effective
in causing remission of metastatic disease and regression of primary tumors with prolonged survival
achieved in patients formerly facing a grave prognosis. In this issue of the Urologic Clinics of North
America numerous experts in this field present
a contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, pathology, molecular biology, radiology, and
clinical management of renal cortical tumors with
an encouraging eye toward the future.
A historical view of kidney surgery reveals the
dangers and high mortality rates associated with
total nephrectomy in the latter years of the nineteenth century (>40%) and the beginning of the
twentieth century (>20%) until the time of the urologist Edwin Beer in 1920 (<4%). In the first half of
the twentieth century, patients were only diagnosed with large, symptomatic (palpable masses
with hematuria and pain), and usually locally advanced renal tumors, which provided a surgical
challenge to the urologists. At that time, incidentally detected renal tumors represented less than
5% of the total. Charles Robsons published experience with transthoracic radical nephrectomy (including ipsilateral adrenal, all perinephric soft
tissues, and regional retroperitoneal lymph nodes)
in 1963 provided the mainstay surgical approach
to all renal tumors during the pre-CT era until
the mid 1980s when elective kidney-sparing
operations were first described. A perioperative
mortality rate of 3% was further improved on as
postWorld War II methods of anesthesia, blood
banking, and perioperative care were integrated
into the surgical management of renal tumors.
The discovery and widespread use of the modern abdominal imaging techniques (CT, MRI, and
abdominal ultrasound) over the last 2 decades
changed the profile of the renal tumor patient
medwedi.ru
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) xiiixvii

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.016
0094-0143/08/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
urologic.theclinics.com
Guest Editor
xiv
Preface
from one who had a massive, symptomatic tumor
at presentation to the current patient who has
a small, asymptomatic renal mass (<4 cm) incidentally discovered in 70% of the cases after
evaluation of nonspecific abdominal and musculoskeletal pain or during unrelated cancer diagnosis
and follow-up care. At the same time as this clinical size and stage migration was occurring, an enhanced understanding of the pathology of renal
tumors was underway. Until the 1980s, renal cortical tumors were classified only by descriptive
terms, such as clear, granular, papillary, sarcomatoid, and renal oncocytoma. The realization that
the renal cortical tumors were, in fact, members
of a complex family with unique pathologic appearances, cytogenetic and molecular defects, familial and hereditary syndromes, and variable
metastatic potentials lead to the development of
the current Heidelberg Classification of renal tumors in 1997. We now know that granular and sarcomatoid tumors are not specific histologic
subtypes, whereas chromophobe, papillary, conventional clear cell, medullary, collecting duct,
metanephric adenoma, and oncocytoma are.
Approximately 90% of the renal tumors that are
metastatic have the conventional clear cell
histology.
Focused research into hereditary and familial tumor syndromes, which account for less than 5% of
all renal cortical tumors, also provided molecular
insight into the sporadic cases within each of the
histologic subtypes. Investigators from the National Cancer Institute discovered that the tumor
suppressor gene VHL, located at chromosome
3p25, could be inactivated by various mutations,
loss of heterozygosity, hypermethylations, or alterations in VHL modifier genes, and was responsible
for the von Hippel-Lindau syndrome. This autosomal dominant syndrome is characterized by retinal
hemangiomas, conventional clear cell renal cell
carcinoma, renal cysts, cerebellar and spinal
hemangioblastomas, pheochromocytomas, endocrine pancreatic tumors, and epididymal cysts.
The dysfunction of the VHL protein increases hypoxia-induced factor (HIF) 1 alpha resulting in
a marked overexpression of vascular and endothelial growth factors and the hypervascular state
observed in the VHL syndrome of tumors in general and its associated conventional clear cell carcinomas of the kidney. Loss of VHL gene function
also occurs in at least 50% of sporadic conventional clear cell carcinomas. Similar intensive
research into other hereditary renal tumor syndromes, including hereditary papillary RCC (cMet
mutation at chromosome 7q34), hereditary leiomyomatosis syndrome and renal cell carcinoma
(HLRCC, mutation in fumarate hydratase gene),
and Birt Hogge Dube syndrome of fibrofolliculomas, chromophobe and oncocytic predominant
renal tumors, pneumothorax, and bronchiectasis
(recently mapped to 17q12) has provided tremendous insight into the molecular mechanisms by
which these tumors operate. Similar cytogenetic
and molecular defects were observed in the histologic subtypes of the sporadic forms of renal
cancer. The research and development of new
systemic agents, tyrosine kinase and mTOR inhibitors, which specifically target pathways that stimulate renal tumor regulation and growth, allowed
for clinical trials in metastatic renal cell carcinoma
with marked improvement in response rates
compared with traditional chemotherapy and
cytokines. In addition, tumor-specific immunohistochemical stains and molecular probes can
now precisely diagnose and subclassify renal tumors far better than traditional pathologic
assessment.
Modern imaging with ultrasound, MRI, and contrast-enhanced CT provides clarity and precision
for the diagnosis and extent of disease evaluation
of patients who have renal masses. Ultrasound
can be a highly useful adjunct in assessing cystic
lesions and allowing for a preoperative correlate
to intraoperative ultrasound, which is particularly
useful when a partial nephrectomy for an endophytic tumor is planned. MRI is the method of
choice for assessing the extent of renal vein and
inferior vena cava extension, which is essential
for assembling the proper surgical team and
equipment for such major operations. Unfortunately, none of these modalities can distinguish
with certainty a benign from malignant renal
mass or define the histologic subtype. A new molecular imaging strategy, termed immunoPET
scanning, is under active investigation and uses
the cG250, whose target, CA9, is abundant in the
malignant conventional clear cell carcinoma.
cG250 is linked to iodine-124, which has a 4-day
half-life and 23% positron emission, permitting adequate PET imaging. In a pilot study of 25 patients
who had renal masses imaged before resection,
the G250 scan accurately predicted the clear cell
histology in 13 of 14 cases with only one false negative. This imaging approach is currently being
evaluated in a large, multi-institutional national trial
of 158 patients. If these initial results are confirmed, the implications for the use of this clear
cellspecific immunoPET scan are broad and
could include a rational approach to active surveillance, molecular determination of extent of disease, extension of kidney-sparing operations,
and a molecular means of following the impact of
novel local treatments (renal tumor ablations) and
systemic agents (multitargeted kinases).
Preface
Surgeons managing renal cortical tumors confront two distinct patient groups. The first group,
approximately 30% of the total, is the large, usually symptomatic, and locally advanced tumors
often with regional adenopathy, adrenal invasion,
and extension into the renal vein or inferior venacava. Most of these tumors have the conventional clear cell histology (90%) and differ little
from the symptomatic tumors treated surgically
by Robson after World War II. Approximately
4% to 10% of patients have renal cancers that
involve the renal vein and inferior vena cava. In
1% of patients, the thrombus can extend into
the right atrium of the heart. Surgical resection
of these tumors can require complex cardiovascular techniques, with and without bypass, and
can lead to safe resection with perioperative mortality rates of less than 10% depending on the
extent of the thrombus. In the absence of nodal
or distant metastases, 5-year survival rates of
greater than 50% are possible. The incidence of
occult positive lymph nodes in 3% to 5% of patients has lead many surgeons to recommend
thorough retroperitoneal node dissections, especially for large T3 and T4 tumors, which may provide a therapeutic benefit in otherwise well
patients who have limited metastatic disease
and provide enhanced pathologic staging that
can facilitate entry into adjuvant clinical trials.
Despite radical resection of these massive tumors, whether by open or laparoscopic surgical
techniques, in conjunction with regional lymphadenectomy and adrenalectomy, progression to
distant metastasis and death from disease occurs
in approximately 30% of these patients. For patients presenting with or developing isolated metastatic disease with good performance status,
metastasectomy has been associated with longterm survival. For patients who have diffuse metastatic disease and good performance status,
cytoreductive nephrectomy may add several additional months of survival as opposed to cytokine
therapy alone. The integration of surgical therapy
for locally advanced and metastatic renal cancer
in the new era of effective systemic multitargeted
kinase inhibitors is currently under active investigation in neoadjuvant and adjuvant clinical
trials.
The second group, approximately 70% of the
total, is those who have small renal tumors (median tumor size <4cm, T1a), usually incidentally
discovered in asymptomatic patients during ultrasound, CT, or MRI obtained for other reasons.
A survival rate of 90% or greater, depending on
the tumor histology, is expected whether partial
or radical nephrectomy is performed. Approximately 20% of patients are found to have
a benign lesion, such as angiomyolipoma, oncocytoma, metanephric adenoma, or hemorrhagic

cyst. Although CT-guided percutaneous renal biopsy can easily be performed, the differentiation
between a benign and malignant tumor and the
determination of tumor histologic subtypes by
current radiologic and biopsy techniques alone
can be difficult (70% accurate) although the development of immunohistochemical and cytogenetic techniques may substantially improve this
accuracy to 90%. Various prognostic models,
nomograms, and algorithms have been constructed based on clinical and pathologic factors,
such as tumor size, histologic subtype, stage,
grade, performance status, and serum laboratory
values to assist clinicians in counseling patients
regarding their prognosis, designing appropriate
follow-up exams and imaging, predicting renal
functional outcomes, and assisting in clinical trial
design.
Trends in surgical oncology toward organ preservation (ie, breast cancer, soft tissue sarcoma),
wherein the oncologic efficacy of more limited operations was confirmed, lead to similar approaches for the management of renal tumors.
Well-done studies first showed that for tumors of
4 cm or less, and later for tumors of 7 cm or less,
elective partial nephrectomy (PN) was equally effective as radical nephrectomy (RN) in local tumor
control and metastases-free survival. Reports
comparing renal functional outcomes between patients undergoing PN or RN for small renal tumors
revealed that closely matched patients undergoing
RN were more likely to have proteinuria and an elevated serum creatinine (>2.0 mg/dL). Recent
studies, using the calculation of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) obtained from the MDRD
formula, confirmed the deleterious impact of RN
on renal function. In one large study, the 3-year
probability of freedom from new onset of GFR
less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 80% after PN
but only 35% after RN. Corresponding values for
the 3-year probability of freedom from GFR less
than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, a more severe level of
CKD, was 95% for PN but only 64% for RN.
Multivariable analysis indicated that RN was an independent risk factor for the development of newonset CKD.
In addition, before kidney tumor resection in
apparently healthy patients who had a normal
contralateral kidney, it was reported that 26%
of patients had pre-existing CKD as defined by
an eGFR of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2.The
pathologic basis of this pre-existing CKD in renal
tumor patients was recently elucidated when the
nontumor-bearing portion of kidneys was
examined and only 10% was found to be normal.
xv
xvi
Preface
The remaining patients had vascular sclerotic
changes and other intrinsic renal abnormalities,
including diabetic nephropathy, glomerular hypertrophy, mesangial expansion, and diffuse
glomerulosclerosis.
Before the morbid traditional endpoint of endstage renal failure and dialysis (eGFR <15 mL/
min/1.73 m2), CKD (eGFR 1560 mL/min/1.73 m2)
is associated with increasing risk for cardiovascular events, hospitalization, and death, the likelihood of which increases as the eGFR decreases.
It is now estimated that there are 19 million adults
in the United States who have CKD. Unlike the
carefully selected and much younger kidney donors, renal tumor patients have a median age of
older than 60 years and often have common medical conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension,
and peripheral vascular disease, that can affect
baseline kidney function. Careful, prospective renal tumor tracking studies in patients initially not
treated surgically coupled with meta-analysis of
the published literature suggests that small renal
tumors have a slow yearly growth rate (approximately 0.3 cm/y). A substantial percentage of
small renal masses have benign or indolent histology (45%), and even if the patient has a conventional clear cell carcinoma, the likelihood of
metastatic disease for tumors of 4 cm or less is believed to be 5% to 7%. The clinical logic of offering
active surveillance to select patients who have
small renal masses with or without a confirmatory
biopsy, particularly those who are elderly or comorbidly ill, is gaining increasing acceptance particularly in light of concerns that overly aggressive
application of radical nephrectomy can worsen or
cause CKD. Despite this robust literature in favor
of kidney preservation strategies, evidence from
large cross-sectional national databases indicates
that RN is overused in the United States and
abroad and still accounts for 90% of kidney operations for small renal (T1) tumors. Overuse of RN is
a quality-of-care issue that needs to be carefully
addressed through educational programs and increased training in open and laparoscopic kidney-sparing operations. New approaches to the
small renal mass, including laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy, and thermal ablative
approaches (radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation) have been actively pursued by committed clinician investigators in the United States and
abroad. Careful case selection and increased experience with the laparoscopic approach to partial
nephrectomy has rendered this a reasonable
alternative in skilled hands; however, concerns relating to the impact of warm ischemia on long-term
renal function and greater perioperative urologic
and non-urologic complications compared with
open partial nephrectomy may limit its widespread

application beyond certain centers of excellence
committed to minimally invasive surgery. For
the ablative procedures, concerns regarding the
pathologic completeness of the ablation, the
best method to follow the ablated kidney lesion
and to determine if it is still viable, and difficulties
in achieving surgical salvage without completion nephrectomy in cases of documented
recurrence remain to be completely addressed
before the widespread acceptance of these
approaches.
The observation that an intense immune
response can be elicited by renal cell cancers,
sufficient enough on rare occasions to lead
to spontaneous regression and even complete
remission of metastatic disease sites, lead to
numerous clinical trials with cytokines, such
as interferon alpha 2a and interleukin 2. Although
these agents could induce durable remissions in
rare cases, patient selection factors seemed to
be important in predicting responses and toxicities were substantial. Partial responses (<20%),
and occasional complete remissions (<4%) were
documented with median survival times usually
less than 12 months. Numerous attempts to treat
metastatic renal cancer with systemic chemotherapies were also unsuccessful and were
marked by limited responses and substantial
drug toxicities. Based on research described
above into the molecular pathways involved in
the pathogenesis of the conventional clear cell
carcinoma, two new multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sunitinib,sorafenib) and one mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor (temsirolimus)
have been recently approved by the US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) after showing
superior responses in placebo-controlled randomized trials involving both treatment-nave
and previously treated patients, compared with
interferon alpha 2a with improvement in progression-free survival from 5 to 11 months. Temsirolimus is effective in improving overall and
progression-free survival in patients who have
poor-risk renal cell cancer. Interesting and substantial responses in the primary tumor have
opened the door to neoadjuvant clinical trials
with these agents for patients who may be unresectable at presentation. Unfortunately, significant toxicities (fatigue, rash, hand-foot
syndromes) and the lack of durable, complete responses have stimulated the oncology community to seek new agents and actively study drug
combinations (ie, TKI inhibitors and bevacizumab). Another hurdle to confront is metastatic
nonclear cell tumor (chromophobe, papillary,
medullary, collecting duct) that seem not to use
Preface
the above-described pathways to the same degree as the clear cell tumors and are therefore
less responsive to the newly FDA-approved
agents.
The authors of this issue of the Urologic Clinics
of North America provide a comprehensive review
of the great progress made, on numerous fronts,
in the understanding and management of renal
cortical tumors. Their work illuminates a clear
and hopeful path to our future goal of further
decreasing the morbidity and mortality of renal

cancer.
Attending Surgeon and Professor
Weill College of Medicine, Cornell University
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
New York, New York, USA
E-mail address:
russop@MSKCC.org (P. Russo)
xvii
Dedic ation
paintings and artwork, which was very well
received.
As a youngster, I knew that my father was a busy
and respected physician. When I was older and
worked alongside him as a hospital orderly and
premedical student, I understood for the first
time the full dimensions and responsibilities of
his profession. Keeping current with his specialty
was extremely important to my father, and he
was an avid and committed reader of the literature
in his and other medical specialties. I was always
amazed at how knowledgeable and thoughtful he
was about the contemporary problems in urology
and urologic oncology. When I interviewed for residency positions I found that many academic urologists knew my father, who had referred patients
to them when their expertise represented the
best care.
His career spanned most of the twentieth century, from the discovery of antibiotics to the cloning of the human genome. Most importantly, C.
Paul Russo was a loving and dedicated parent to
my sisters and me, and a devoted spouse to my
mother. For this, especially, I will always be
grateful.
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) xix

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.017
I dedicate this issue of the Urologic Clinics of

North America to my father, Dr. Carmine Paul
Russo of Ithaca, New York. Dr. Russo was
born in New York City in 1914 and was a 1938
graduate of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University. He did residency
training in Urology at Queens General Hospital
and the Long Island College Hospital. He was
a Major in the United States Army and served
4 years at a military hospital in Coventry, England
during World War II, as a result of which he received the Bronze Star. On his return to the
United States and under the advice of Dr. Victor
Marshall, Dr. Russo established the first urology
practice in Ithaca, New York, in 1947. At that
time, most major urologic operations were done
by general surgeons. Dr. Russo brought innovative techniques and procedures to upstate New
York, including intravenous pyelograms, transurethral resections, transaortic renal angiograms, perineal radical prostatectomies, and
partial nephrectomy. He retired from clinical
practice in 2004, a difficult year in which he
lost his wife, my mother Rose Russo, to cancer
after 62 years of marriage. Today, Dr. Russo remains active in the Ithaca community and recently had a showing of nearly 40 years of his
Surgical Management
of Renal Tumors :
A Historical Perspective
Harry W. Herr, MD
KEYWORDS
FOUNDATIONS
The modern era of renal surgery began on August
2, 1869, just 139 years ago, when Gustav Simon
(18241876), then Professor of Surgery at Heidelberg, performed the first planned nephrectomy
on a living human being.1 His patient was a 46year-old woman named Margaretha Kleb, who
suffered from a pervious urinary fistula caused by
an injury to the ureter sustained during a prior laparotomy to remove an ovarian cyst. She survived
removal of her kidney and was permanently cured
of her fistula. Eighteen years later in 1887, Vincenz
Czerny (18421915), Simons successor at Heidelberg, performed the first partial nephrectomy to
remove a renal tumor.2 Both total and partial nephrectomy have become the hallmark surgical
procedures used today to treat renal tumors, and
their conception and evolution represent two of
the most important advances in medicine and
surgery.
Simon (Fig. 1) arrived at his decision to remove
a healthy, functioning kidney, plagued with many
questions for which he had no sure answers.
Would the remaining kidney supply the needs of
the body? Could the ligated renal artery withstand
the blood pressure of the aorta following absorption of the ligature? Could the initial hemorrhage
be controlled? Could wounds and infection of the
peritoneum be avoided? Still, there was historical
precedent for the operation.
For many years, physiologists had established
the fact that animals could survive after removal
of one kidney. In 1670, Zambecarri, along with
Rounhuysen, extirpated sound kidneys without
causing death; he was also the first to contemplate

the operation of nephrectomy in man.3 Between
1690 and 1841, Blancard, Blundell, Claude Bernard and others repeated similar experiments,
concluding that any adverse effects following
nephrectomy were more a result of the operation
itself than to the absence of one kidney. During
the nineteenth century, abdominal surgery flourished, particularly to remove large ovarian cysts
or tumors. In a few cases this had resulted in unintentional nephrectomies, as in those by Wolcott
(1861), Spiegelberg (1867), and Peaslee (1868).
Although the patients died eventually from infections, in each case the remaining kidney worked
well. Many autopsies also showed that for an indefinite time before death, only one kidney had
been functioning.4
The animal experiments and surgical misadventures of the ovariotomists impressed Simon,
but he was still not ready to remove a healthy kidney without witnessing the consequences himself. He nephrectomized 30 dogs and observed
they lived in perfect health after ablation of one
kidney. He noted compensatory hypertrophy
and convinced himself that the physiologic function of the kidneys could be maintained by one
kidney. He dissected cadavers to work out the
anatomic details, steps of the operation, and the
best access to the retroperitoneum. Only then
was he ready to proceed with his landmark
nephrectomy. In 1869, before a live audience,
he removed Klebs left kidney through a lumbar
incision. Simon completed the operation in
40 minutes and lost just 50 mL of blood. Renal
surgery was born.
Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1275 York
Avenue, New York, NY 10021, USA
E-mail address: herrh@mskcc.org
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 543549
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.010
Renal tumors Surgery History
544
Herr
Fig. 1. Gustav Simon, (18241876), performed first

planned nephrectomy in 1869.
EARLY RENAL SURGERY

Simon had no imitators for nearly a year. In April
1870, Parker removed a kidney from a 12-yearold girl, for hydronephrosis, but the patient died
from shock the following day. In December 1870,
Gilmore,5 an American surgeon, removed a painful
floating kidney in a woman, aged 39 years, who recovered without mishap. In 1875, Langenbuch6
performed the first nephrectomy for a malignant
tumor, followed by Jessop7 in 1877, who removed
a Wilms tumor. Both patients survived the operation. The first decade after Simon (18701879)
saw 28 nephrectomies, but the mortality rate was
a frightful 64%. With the wide acceptance of antisepsis in 1876, and later adopting Listers
methods of asepsis in 1880, the next 5 years
(from 1880 to 1884) saw the mortality rate fall to
24% after 219 nephrectomies.8 Most surgeons
used the lumbar approach, believing that it was
safer; however, in 1876 Kocher was forced to
use the transperitoneal route to remove a bulky tumor and concluded that it afforded a fairly easy approach to the kidney.9 Some surgeons adopted
this approach because they could ascertain the
condition of the opposite kidney by palpation.
However, the invention of the cystoscope by Nitze
in 1877, and the practical applications of ureteral
catheterization, soon gave adequate information
on the opposite kidney; transperitoneal operations

fell into disfavor, except for removal of large
tumors.
Every decade up the dawn of the twentieth century, survival rates after nephrectomy improved. In
1901, von Schmieden reported on 1,118 nephrectomies, collecting the operations of the first three
decades following the first deliberate nephrectomy by Simon. He showed that nephrectomy by
the lumbar route was followed by a mortality of
44% in the first, by 27% in the second, and by
17% in the third decade. The abdominal method
had a mortality of 55% in the first, 48% in the
second, and 19% in the last decade.10 In 1902,
Kuster11 collected the statistics of 1,521 nephrectomies performed by different surgeons around
the world, giving mortality for all cases of 34%
for the transperitoneal and 12% for the
extraperitoneal removal of kidneys. By 1900
though, techniques of abdominal surgery had
improved markedly so that both approaches
were comparable. During the early twentieth century, mortality reported by specialists or skilled
urologists was markedly less than nephrectomy
done by general surgeons. In 1912, Gerster12 in
New York reported mortality in 21% of
112 nephrectomies done by general surgeons in
the last 16 years. During the same time, renal
cases segregated, studied, and operated upon
by urologists under the direction of Edwin Beer13
had a mortality rate of only 3.8% among
207 nephrectomies.
The usual indications for nephrectomy were
stones, movable kidney, hydronephrosis, renal abscess, urinary fistulae, and tumors. Many of these
diseases affected only a part of the kidney, and
partial or heminephrectomy developed rapidly
owing to the successes of total nephrectomy. In
November 1887, Czerny (Fig. 2) performed the first
deliberate partial resection when he removed an
angiosarcoma from the kidney of a 30-year-old
gardener. The patient recovered. Fears of uncontrollable hemorrhage were dispelled by the work
of Tuffier14, who in 1889 showed that gentle pressure could control bleeding from the kidney, and
animal experiments by Thiriar in 188815 and Bardenheuer16 in 1891 proved that incisions made
into the kidney often healed primarily without fistula formation. They investigated renal repair
mechanisms, compensatory hypertrophy, renal
function, changes in body functions, and the
amount of renal tissue necessary for life after partial resection.
Surgeons then began to perform partial nephrectomy in various types of cases, but the operation soon lost favor and it was more or less
abandoned because of an unwarranted fear of
Surgical Management of Renal Tumors
Fig. 2. Vinsenz Czerny, (18421915), performed first

partial nephrectomy for renal tumor.
extensive hemorrhage at operation, delayed

bleeding following surgery, frequent and persistent urinary fistula, and poor results owing to the
injudicious use of partial resection to treat tuberculosis and neoplasms of the kidney. Kummell
(1890), Bardenheuer (1891), and Block (1895) attempted partial nephrectomy for tumors but their
patients died of atrophy of the kidney, shock,
and uremia. During this early period, lumbar nephrectomy became established as the only effective operation for malignant diseases of the kidney.
In spite of better surgical methods, nephrectomy
for kidney tumors was followed by a high mortality,
varying from 50% (Squier, 1909) to 11% (Braasch,
1913). As late as 1920, Hyman15 reported a mortality
of 23% to 37%. The reasons for the unusually high
mortality in nephrectomy for tumor were attributed
to shock resulting from toxins released during the
manipulation necessary to remove large tumors,
and hemorrhage. Another frequent cause was fatal
tumor emboli, owing to dislodged cancer cells entering the circulation during surgery. Block16 noted
an extension of cancer cells into the renal vein in
13 of 86 cases studied. Enthusiasm for conservative
surgery for renal tumors was especially discouraged by autopsy and nephrectomy specimens
showing frequent tumor spread into fat around the
kidney and involvement of renal veins, as well as
that almost all patients during this time had palpable
and symptomatic renal cancers.
In 1903, Gregoire17 reported removing kidney

tumors en bloc with the fatty capsule, adrenal
gland, and adjacent lymph nodes. This was the
first description of the modern radical (perifascial)
nephrectomy popularized later in the twentieth
century. Its advantages were articulated by
Chute18, who in 1926 advocated anterior abdominal removal of kidney cancers because the pedicle
is more easily reached and can be ligated immediately, minimizing the danger of forcing metastases
into the renal veins, causing less trauma and affording palpation of the retroperitoneal glands. In
large tumors, control of the renal pedicle posed
problems. In 1902, Pasteau19 recommended ligating the renal artery and vein separately, whereas
Legueu (1921) and others advised tying off the
pedicle en masse. Early surgeons emphasized
that dividing the upper ureter facilitated greater
mobility of the kidney and easier ligation of the
pedicle, and they did not hesitate to resect a rib
to secure better exposure. Most surgeons continued to perform a lumbar or flank nephrectomy,
however; and although they believed that total
nephrectomy was the only effective treatment of
malignant kidney tumors, despite such aggressive
surgery for the times, 33% of patients died of
disease within 1 year and 65% died in less than
5 years.
In 1921, Rosenstein20 performed a partial nephrectomy to palliate a kidney cancer and urged
that this operation should be done in similar cases
in which the contralateral kidney was incapable of
satisfactory function following nephrectomy. In
1937 Goldstein and Abeshouse collected 296
cases of partial resection (19011935), of which
34 (11%) were done for renal tumors. They noted
one death among 21 malignant tumors and no
deaths for 13 benign tumors, and there were no
cases of secondary hemorrhage or urinary fistula.
They concluded that small tumors and tumors
of moderate size situated at one of the poles of
the kidney, may be removed by partial resection
out of necessity, but was contraindicated if the opposite kidney was healthy.21 From 1937 to 1950
another 25 cases were added with similar results,
although suspected renal tumors were primarily
treated by total nephrectomy and only a few
patients with poor renal function underwent local
excision. Most surgeons regarded partial nephrectomy as technically more demanding than
nephrectomy, associated with a higher complication rate, and simply unnecessary in most patients.
In 1950, Vermooten laid the foundation for modern nephron sparing surgery for renal neoplasms.
There are certain instances, when, for the patients well being, it is unwise to do a nephrectomy,
even in the presence of a malignant growth
545
546
Herr
involving the kidney. The question is, whether such
a procedure is ever justifiable when the opposite
kidney is normal. I am inclined to think that in certain circumstances it may be.22 In 1948 he removed a 10-cm carcinoma from the left kidney of
a 52-year-old woman with a normal right kidney.
His decision was based on the pathologic studies
by Cahill (1948), showing that clear cell carcinomas arose from the cortex, were localized, surrounded by a capsule, grew by expansile growth,
rarely invaded surrounding structures, and generally spread by the bloodstream. He was also aware
that the autopsy studies by Bell and others (1938
1944) had revealed few metastases from small renal tumors. Bell23 reported that only 7% of tumors
less than 5 cm had metastasized, compared with
83% of tumors larger than 10 cm. In fact, small tumors rarely broke through the capsule and only
one isolated metastasis was noted among 38 tumors 3 cm or smaller in size. Microscopic studies
of tissue adjacent to tumors persuaded Vermooten that some tumors could be excised with only
a 1-cm margin without fear of local recurrence,
and local tumor excision should be attempted, especially in a solitary kidney or when there was
markedly impaired function of the opposite kidney.
Few urologists paid much attention to Vermooten or to the observations of Bell except to argue
that, because small tumors might metastasize,
that warranted total nephrectomy for all renal tumors, especially in cases with two kidneys. During
the next 40 years, partial nephrectomy was done
mostly for tumors in a solitary kidney, poor renal
function, or bilateral renal tumors. From 1950 to
1967, Zinman and Dowd collected only 18 essential cases of partial nephrectomy, adding 3 of their
own. At the same time, other progressive surgeons
reported individual cases of partial nephrectomy
for unilateral renal tumors when the other kidney
was considered satisfactory. Still, most urologists
believed that partial nephrectomy was unwarranted unless there was a compelling reason to
preserve renal function. Textbooks published between 1937 and 1970 do not mention partial
nephrectomy.24
MODERN RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY

In 1949, Charles Robson in Toronto was searching
for a safer method to remove large tumors when
he became aware of simultaneous descriptions
in 1948 by Chute and colleagues25 in Boston and
Mortensen26 in New Zealand, where large renal
carcinomas were removed through a thoraco-abdominal incision. The kidney mass was removed
together with the perinephric fat and overlying
peritoneum, but no attempt was made to excise
the draining lymphatic field. Robson27 performed

his first thoraco-abdominal radical nephrectomy
in 1949, and in 1963 he published his results in
a landmark article, reporting survival rates of
56% at 3 years and 48% at 5 years among 62
cases. He updated his experience in 88 patients
in 1969, showing similar superior results over historical reports and only a 3% surgical mortality.28
He also became the first to correlate survival with
extent (stage) and grade of kidney cancer. Robson
believed the improved survival he saw over lumbar
nephrectomy was because of early occlusion of
the renal pedicle before manipulation of the tumor,
removal of the kidney within its envelope of perinephric fat, and dissection of the regional lymph
glands, which were involved in 22% of the cases.
Although claims of superior survival over simple
nephrectomy favored in the past were never substantiated29, there is no doubt that Robsons Halstedian approach to kidney cancer was right for
the times. Most patients presented then with
symptomatic or locally advanced tumors, mandating radical excision of the kidney and involving adjacent tissues and organs. Radical nephrectomy
became established as the standard surgical
treatment for localized kidney tumors and all solid
renal masses were considered to be potentially
lethal cancers. These attitudes would prevail for
much of the rest of the twentieth century.
MODERN PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY

Amid a climate of radical surgery, the 1960s also
saw significant advances in nephron-sparing surgery. Poutasse (1962) improved the surgical technique of partial nephrectomy by tracing the
segmental blood supply to the kidney, and Kerr
(1959) and Klotz (1960) introduced renal hypothermia, which prevented ischemic damage, and
permitted longer operations and complicated
reconstructions of the kidney in a bloodless field.
As a result of these surgical advances and the
earlier favorable experiences of a few surgeons,
partial nephrectomy began to be done more
frequently in essential cases.24 Local recurrence
in the partially resected kidney ranged from 4%
to 10%, but overall survival was similar to radical
nephrectomy. In 1975, Wickham30 reviewed the
world literature (19541974) and reported a 5year survival rate of 72% in 37 patients after partial
nephrectomy for tumors in a solitary kidney or bilateral renal tumors, setting the stage to expand
the indications for partial nephrectomy to include
patients with a healthy opposite kidney.
In the 1970s, Puigvert (1976), Herr (1976), Novick (1977), and later Marberger (1981) began to seriously question the wisdom of removing a mostly

healthy kidney containing a unilateral, localized renal tumor, even in patients with a normal opposite
kidney. This was hardly an original idea, as Vermooten (1950), Ljunggren (1960), and Semb
(1965) had come to similar conclusions more
than a decade earlier. During the 1980s, although
a few urologists advocated routine elective partial
nephrectomy for small renal tumors, the majority
still showed little interest in pursuing conservative
surgery over radical nephrectomy for renal cancers. However, that was about to change.24
The 1980s marked the beginning of the era of
elective nephron-sparing surgery for renal tumors.
Although the topic was hotly debated among the
urological community for the next two decades,
all the important pieces were in place to predict
successful partial nephrectomy for most renal tumors. These included knowledge of intra-renal
vascular anatomy, better surgical methods to
reconstruct the kidney-reducing complications,
renal hypothermia, an increasing number of smaller cortical tumors detected incidentally by later
generation high resolution CT and MRI scans,
and few local recurrences reported after partial
nephrectomy for tumors in solitary kidneys. Many
urologists remained skeptical, however, of removing only the tumor and preserving the diseased
kidney when the patient had another perfectly
good kidney. Their major concern was the possibility of local recurrence because of inadequate
excision or multicentric tumors after partial excision. In 1988 that fear was amplified by Mukamel
when he reported evidence of occult renal tumors
in up to 30% of nephrectomy specimens, which
might recur if only the primary tumor was removed.
Although this rate would later fall to 5%, there was
little evidence at the time that such information
dissuaded committed surgeons from pursuing
elective nephron-sparing surgery. However, it
strengthened the arguments of those who were
philosophically opposed to a conservative
approach and undoubtedly deterred some from
performing partial nephrectomy, even for small
tumors.
In 1993, Licht and Novick31 reported early favorable results in 241 cases collected from the literature (19671991) of partial nephrectomy with
a normal opposite kidney. Although the average
tumor size was less than 3.5 cm and follow-up
was short (3 years), only two local recurrences
were reported and 95% of patients survived. In
addition, improved surgical techniques using the
argon beam coagulator, newer hemostatic agents,
and intraoperative ultrasound allowed more precise resection, reducing the risk of serious postoperative complications. Subsequently, Herr32 and
Novick33 provided 10-year follow-up on more
than 100 patients, showing a rare local recurrence

and almost 100% survival, especially in patients
with unilateral tumors less than 4 cm in size. At
the dawn of the twenty-first century, only then
did urologists widely accept elective partial nephrectomy as a viable surgical treatment of localized renal tumors.
LAPAROSCOPIC NEPHRECTOMY
Although Kelling was the first to try laparoscopy
using Nitzes cystoscope in 1901, laparoscopic
surgery evolved slowly and was largely limited to
the removal of small pieces of solid tissues (ovary,
lymph nodes) or excision of hollow organs (gallbladder). In 1991, Ralph Clayman took a laparoscopic leap forward when he and his team in St.
Louis successfully removed the right kidney and
a 3-cm tumor from an 85-year-old woman. The operative time was 7 hours and became the first operation where laparoscopic techniques were used
to remove a major solid organ from a human being.
Clayman knew he was breaking new ground. Like
Simon had done more than a century before, Clayman performed successive nephrectomies in pigs
to learn the laparoscopic operation and to perfect
a sack to contain the kidney in the abdomen. Engineers also devised an effective morcellator/evacuator to remove the specimen.34 Published as
a simple letter35, Claymans innovative and bold
first laparoscopic nephrectomy touched off urologys enduring courtship with laparoscopic surgery (Fig. 3).
Advances then progressed rapidly. The first partial nephrectomy went from bench to bedside in
less than a year. Seminal work done by Elspeth
McDougall and colleagues36 in the laboratory
was translated into clinical reality in 1993 when
Howard Winfield37, in Iowa, performed the first
laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Still in the development stage today, laparoscopic partial
Fig. 3. Laparoscopic nephrectomy team at Washington

University in St. Louis (circa 1991). Ralph Clayman is at
far right.
547
548
Herr
nephrectomy for renal tumors is a technically demanding procedure that has yet to recapitulate
all of the favorable features marking the successful
open operation, and its final place in the armamentarium of the surgical treatment of renal tumors
remains to be defined. Improvements are being
made regularly, however; and these, and robot
assisted surgery now widely available, are likely
to extend laparoscopic capabilities beyond
imagination.
THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Surgery for kidney cancer continues to evolve. Today, the majority of nephrectomies for malignant
renal tumors are performed laparoscopically. Partial nephrectomy is mostly done by open surgery,
although laparascopic approaches are becoming
more common, and the current trend is toward
nephron-sparing surgery. For example, most renal
tumors are now small and serendipitously diagnosed, half are benign or subtypes associated
with favorable biology compared with clear cell
carcinoma, global renal function is better preserved, onset of chronic kidney disease may be
prevented or delayed, and survival improved after
local tumor excision compared with nephrectomy.38 Such considerations have led to expanding the indications of partial nephrectomy to
include centrally located and larger tumors.39
If we look ahead into the twenty-first century, it
is a safe bet we will not treat renal tumors the
same way we do now. Surgery will still predominate, but using minimally invasive approaches.
Parallel advances in tumor biology, radiologic
imaging, and technology already suggest that
laparoscopic, robotic, and percutaneous energyablation procedures promise to control renal
tumors with less morbidity than open surgery.
There is every reason to believe that such
treatments and aims will prove to be successful.
Eventually, a simple needle biopsy or a targeted
image will characterize renal tumors at the molecular level, identifying which need or do not need
treatment. This will become important in the future
to deal with the increasing incidence of renal
tumors in an aging population.
In 1950, Abeshouse said it best: Few procedures provide the urologist with more satisfaction
than those that preserve renal function. If we
want to gaze into the future, we need only look
to the past.
REFERENCES
1. Simon G. Chirugie der Nieren. Stuttgart: Ferdinand
Enke, vol. II, p. 314, 1871.
2. Czerny V. Reported by Herczel E: Uber Nierenexsirpation. Beitr. Z. Klinik. Chir. 1890;6:485.

3. Newman D. History of renal surgery. Lancet 1901;6:
8845.
4. Morris H. On the origin and progress of renal surgery. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston, Son & Co; 1898.
5. Gilmore JT. Case of successful removal of a kidney
from a woman. Am J Obst 1871;4:745.
6. Langenbuch C. Berlin Klin. Wchnschr 1877;14:337.
7. Jessop TR. Lancet 1877;1:889 [Annotation].
8. Riches E. Annual oration on the development of renal surgery. Trans Med Soc Lond 1970;86:200.
9. Mathe CP. Kidney surgery. In: History of Urology,
vol 1. American Urological Association, Williams
& Wilkins Co.; 1932. p. 298.
10. von Schmieden V. Die Erfolge der Nierenchirugie.
Deutsche Ztschr. f. Chir. 1901;1xii:205.
11. Kuster EGF. Die Chirugirschen Krankheiten der
Nieren. Stuttgart (Germany): Deutsche Chirugie;
18961902. Lfg. 52b, p. 174.
12. Gerster AG. Nephrectomy. Ann Surg 1912;1vi:1.
13. Beer E, Hyman A. Progress in nephrectomy. JAMA
1920;1xxv:1180.
14. Tuffier T. Etudes experimentales sur la chirugie du
rein. Steinheil G, Paris, 1889, vol. 1, p. 166.
15. Hyman A. Tumors of the kidney. Tr Am Urol A 1920;
xii:242.
16. Block G. Folia Urol 1910;161.
17. Gregoire W. Les propagations du cancer du rein.
Bull Med Soc Anat (Paris) 1903;78:7649.
18. Chute AL. A study of some cases of hypernephroma.
Boston: Medical and Surgical Journal; 1926;cxciv, 471.
19. Pasteau O. Technique de la ligature du pedicule renal dans la nephrectomie. Bull Soc Anat 1902;1xxvii:
89.
20. Rosenstein P. J Urol 1921;15:447.
21. Goldstein AE, Abeshouse BS. Partial resections of
the kidney. J Urol 1937;38:159.
22. Vermooten V. Indications for conservative surgery in
certain renal tumors: a study based on growth
pattern of the clear cell carcinoma. J Urol 1950;64:
200.
23. Bell ET. A classification of renal tumors with observations on the frequency of the various types. J Urol
1938;39:238.
24. Herr HW. History of partial nephrectomy. J Urol
2005;173:7058.
25. Chute R, Soutter L, Kerr WS. Value of thoraco-abdominal incision in removal of kidney tumors. New
Engl. J Med 1949;241:951.
26. Mortensen H. Transthoracic nephrectomy. J Urol
1948;60:855.
27. Robson CJ. Radical nephrectomy for renal cell
carcinoma. J Urol 1963;89:37.
28. Robson CJ, Churchill BM, Anderson W. The results
of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 1969;101:297301.

29. Skinner D, Colvin R, Vermillion C, et al. Diagnosis and
management of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 1971;
28:116573.
30. Wickham JE. Conservative renal surgery for adenocarcinoma. Br J Urol 1975;47:25.
31. Licht MR, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for
renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1993;149:110.
32. Herr HW. Partial nephrectomy for unilateral renal carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney: 10-year
followup. J Urol 1999;161:337.
33. Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results
of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol 2000;163:4426.
34. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Leng SR, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial report of pelviscopic
organ ablation in the pig. J Endourol 1990;4:247.
35. Clayman RV, Kavoussi L, Soper NJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy. N Engl J Med 1991;324:
13701.
36. McDougall EM, Clayman RV, Chandhoke PJ, et al.
Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in the pig model.
J Urol 1993;149:16336.
37. Winfield HN, Donovan JF, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial case report for
benign disease. J Endourol 1993;7:5216.
38. Huang WC, Sevey AS, Russo P. Chronic kidney
disease after nephrectomy in patients with
renal cortical tumors. Lancet Oncol 2006;9:
73540.
39. Russo P, Goetzl M, Simmons R, et al. Partial nephrectomy: the rationale for expanding indications.
Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:6807.
549
Pathologic Features
of Renal Cor tical
Tumors
Satish K.Tickoo, MD*, Anuradha Gopalan, MD
KEYWORDS
Renal cell carcinoma Oncocytoma Pathology
Morphologic features Immunohistochemistry
prognostic evaluation. Therefore, the challenges

to the genitourinary pathologists are to (i) understand the morphologic diversity seen in different
tumors to classify them more precisely, (ii) understand the antigenic diversity in these tumors and
its application to targeted therapy, and (iii) be
able to classify these tumors on minimal material,
such as needle biopsies and aspirates.
GRADING AND STAGING OF RENAL TUMORS

Among the several grading schemes proposed for
renal tumors over the years, Fuhrmans system is
the most widely used. It uses nuclear grades
based on nuclear size, irregularity of the nuclear
membrane, and nucleolar prominence. For practical purposes, easily identifiable nucleoli at low
magnification (10) examination are characteristic
of nuclear grade 3 or 4, with grade 4 nuclei also
showing marked pleomorphism and multilobulation. Grade 1 or 2 nuclei generally require examination at high magnification (40) to identify and
evaluate the level of prominence of the nucleoli.
While the utility of Fuhrmans grading system in
clear cell RCC is well established, its value in papillary and chromophobe RCC remains controversial. Renal oncocytomas are not graded, as they
are benign tumors.
The TNM classification of the American Joint
Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and Union Internationale Contre le Cancer is the most widely used
and clinically relevant staging system for renal tumors. Over the years it has been modified and improved multiple times; the latest modifications
Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, New York
10065, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tickoos@mskcc.org (S.K. Tickoo).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 551561
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.001
Until the 1980s, renal cortical tumors had been traditionally classified as clear cell, granular cell, papillary and sarcomatoid carcinoma, or renal
oncocytoma. In 1985, Thoenes and colleagues1,2
first described chromophobe renal cell carcinoma
(RCC) in human beings, followed soon by its eosinophilic variant. This led to a reassessment of the
morphologic classification of renal tumors and
laid the framework for the clinicopathologically
more valid classification used today (Box 1). We
know now that granular cell carcinoma and
sarcomatoid carcinoma are not specific entities,
and that granular and sarcomatoid features can be
seen in a variety of renal tumors with markedly diverse biologic potential. The current histologic
classification has also been validated by a number
of molecular studies.35 The implications of this
now universally accepted classification system
are that publications about clinicopathologic aspects of renal tumors from the pre-1985 era may
not correspond to the current knowledge about
these tumors.
The better understanding of the molecular aspects of renal tumors in the recent past has resulted in the realization that differing molecular
pathways are involved in different renal tumors.
This has resulted in the development and usage
of multiple targeted therapies, particularly for advanced clear cell RCC, with promising initial results.6 At the same time, this knowledge has
provided pathologists with additional tools to investigate molecular pathway markers in different
subtypes of kidney tumors, and to potentially use
them for their differential diagnostic and
552
Tickoo & Gopalan
Box 1
Classification of adult renal cortical tumors
Benign
Renal oncocytoma
Papillary adenoma
Metanephric adenoma
included in the AJCC staging system in 2002. In

a retrospective study, it was recently shown that
a significant proportion of cases that die of apparent pT1 disease in fact have renal sinus fat invasion.9 Therefore, a careful gross examination and
adequate sampling of the renal sinus-tumor interface, especially in larger tumors, is strongly
recommended.
Metanephric adenofibroma
Malignant
Clear Cell (conventional) RCC
CLEAR CELL (CONVENTIONAL) RCC
Papillary RCC
Clear cell RCC comprises approximately 60% to

65% of all renal cortical tumors.5,10 They typically
show tumor cells with clear cytoplasm (because
of the abundant intracytoplasmic lipid and glycogen) and an acinar or solid-nested growth pattern,
invested by an intricate, arborizing vasculature.
The cytoplasmic clarity is especially more common in low-grade tumors. The higher grade tumors
less often show pure clear cell cytology, and may
contain variable proportions of (or even exclusive)
tumor cells with granular/eosinophilic cytoplasm
(Fig. 1A). In these high-grade areas, a loss of the
acinar growth pattern is quite frequent, and such
areas are more likely to have solid or sometimes
sarcomatoid histology. It is important to look for
areas of transition to a lower grade so as to establish the correct diagnosis. The intricate vasculature
tends to be retained in most tumors, except in the
very high-grade areas with solid or sarcomatoid
differentiation. Sarcomatoid differentiation occurs
in approximately 5% of these tumors and, as in
other subtypes of RCC, is an indicator of highgrade tumor with generally ominous prognosis.5,11,12 These tumors may take on a papillary
or pseudopapillary appearance focally, but this is
usually because of degenerative changes rather
than true papillae formation.
Chromophobe RCC
Collecting duct carcinoma
Medullary carcinoma
Tubulocystic RCC
Acquired cystic disease of kidney-associated
RCC
RCC, unclassified
Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma
Translocation associated carcinomas
Tumors of indefinite malignant potential
Multilocular cystic RCC
were made in 2002. While it cannot claim to be

a perfect staging system, at present the usage of
TNM classification is recommended in the hope
of establishing uniformity in reporting, while future
AJCC staging criteria will almost certainly correct
whatever deficiencies are realized in the present
system.
Recently, a series of publications have highlighted the importance of the renal sinus and sinus
veins in the staging of RCC,7,8 factors first
Fig.1. Clear cell RCC. (A) The high-grade areas to the left have large, Fuhrman nuclear grade 4 cytology and nonclear (granular) cytoplasm. (HE;100). (B) Diffuse and membranous immunoreactivity for carbonic anhydrase IX
(CA IX) is characteristic (CA-IX; 100).
Pathologic Features of Renal Cortical Tumors

Clear cell RCCs are characterized by the loss of
genetic material of the short arm of chromosome 3
(3p) and mutations in the von Hippel-Lindau tumor
suppressor (VHL) gene.1317 In patients with von
Hippel-Lindau disease, such losses and mutations
are described in virtually all cases. Somatic mutations/promoter hypermethylations in the same region can be found in 75% to 80% of the more
common sporadic tumors as well.18 The product
of a normal VHL gene, pVHL, is required to target
and degrade hypoxia-induced factor (HIF) in normoxemic states. In cells that are hypoxic, or lack
pVHL (as in most cases of clear cell RCC), HIF escapes degradation and activates downstream targets, including vascular endothelial growth factor,
platelet derived growth factor, glucose transporter
1, and carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX), among
others. The expression of these downstream products at the immunohistochemical level may be
used as diagnostic markers of clear cell RCC
(Fig. 1B) or as targets for novel therapies.6,1922
CA IX and HIF-1 immunohistochemical expression
has also been reported to be related to prognosis,
although large prospective studies evaluating
such associations are currently not available.2224
PAPILLARY RCC
Papillary RCC (PRCC) constitute up to 15% of all
renal cortical neoplasms. There are at least two
distinct types of papillary RCC, both at the morphologic and genetic level, and they appear to
have distinct clinical behaviors as well.2528 Architecturally, most of these tumors have a papillary,
tubular, or tubulo-papillary growth pattern. Some
have asolid growth pattern because of compression of the papillary structures, while others show
a glomeruloid appearance. The cytoplasm may
be amphophilic, eosinophilic, or even partially
clear. Papillary RCCs are often multifocal, are frequently associated with papillary adenomas (tumors less than 5 mm in size, by definition) and
are the most common RCC type with bilateral disease. Classically, papillary tumors display abundant lipid laden, foamy macrophages within
fibrovascular cores, a feature helpful in establishing the correct diagnosis. It needs to be emphasized that correct classification of these tumors
requires experience and a detailed review of all
available slides.
Some experts feel that the Fuhrman grading
scheme is well suited for papillary RCC but others
disagree.10,26,29,30 Delahunt and Eble25 have suggested a two-tiered system (types 1 and 2)
(Fig. 2) based on nuclear features and growth pattern characteristics, which has also been accepted in the latest World Health Organization
classification. Whether these tumors should be
graded and, if so, what system to use remains
controversial.
Cytogenetic and molecular studies have revealed distinct findings in PRCC that distinguishes
them from other renal epithelial tumors.31,32 The
majority of tumors, particularly type 1, are characterized by trisomy of chromosomes 7 and 17, as
well as loss of chromosome Y.3,31,3337 Approximately 10% of the sporadic PRCC also show somatic mutations in the c-MET gene, a genetic
abnormality that is common as a germline mutation in familial cases.38 Some investigators have
suggested that tumors exhibiting trisomy 7/17
only are likely to be benign, whereas those exhibiting additional genetic abnormalities will behave
aggressively, a hypothesis that has not been confirmed in the literature. Recently, a group from the
National Institutes of Health described mutations
in the fumarate hydratase gene associated with
a subset of type 2 papillary RCC.4 In most large
Fig. 2. Variants of papillary RCC. (A) Type 1, with low-grade cytology and abundant foamy histiocytes in the cores
of the papillae (HE; 100). (B) Type 2, with high-grade nuclei, eosinophilic cytoplasm, and nuclear pseudostratification (HE;100).
553
554
Tickoo & Gopalan

well-studied series, papillary RCC is a less aggressive tumor than clear cell RCC, with 5-year survival
rates of 80% to 85%.5,29,30,39
TRANSLOCATION ASSOCIATED RCC

Translocation associated RCC constitute a small
group of RCCs that may have a prominent papillary architecture, often associated with clear cell
cytology and psammomatous calcifications. However, nested architecture and cells with granular
eosinophilic cytoplasm are also common. In general, they tend to present in younger patients,
although a series of cases in adults has also recently been described.4042 These are often associated with an aggressive behavior, more so in the
adults.42 Most cases are associated with t(X;17) or
t(X;1), translocations resulting in the fusion of the
TFE3 gene on Xp11.2 to usually the ASPL gene
on chromosome17 or PRCC on chromosome 1.
Both types show strong nuclear immunohistochemical staining with TFE3 antibody. Another
subtype seen in children and young adults is characterized by t(6;11) (p21;q12),43 and it shows
strong immunopositivity for transcripton factor
TFEB. It is very likely that translocation associated
carcinomas were incorrectly classified in the past
as unusual variants of clear cell carcinoma,
PRCC, or even RCC, unclassified type.
separated by incomplete fibrovascular septations.

Occasionally, tubular, nested or cord-like growth,
mimicking renal oncocytoma, may be present.
The cells may be predominantly clear (with finely
reticulated cytoplasm), eosinophilic, or most often
with a mixture of clear and eosinophilic cells. Nuclei usually exhibit widespread hyperchromasia
and nuclear membrane irregularity, although
such nuclear features may sometimes be only focal. Classically, one sees perinuclear clearing
(perinuclear halo), corresponding to distended
microvesiclesa distinctive ultrastructural feature
of chromophobe RCC. Thoenes and colleagues2
also described an eosinophilic variant that may
be confused with oncocytoma (Fig. 3A). As in
other RCC types, chromophobe RCC with sarcomatoid features is a highly aggressive variant.
Chromophobe RCC are genetically characterized by multiple chromosomal losses, usually affecting chromosomes 1, Y, 6, 10, 13, 17, and
21,4447 with resultant hypodiploidy.48 These tumors have a much better prognosis than clear
cell and papillary RCC, with the 5-year disease
free survivals of greater than 90%.29,30,49 Even in
metastatic settings, Motzer and colleagues50
demonstrated that chromophobe carcinomas
progress more indolently than other nonclear cell
RCCs.
RENAL ONCOCYTOMA
CHROMOPHOBE RCC
Chromophobe RCC, first described in 1985 by
Thoenes and colleagues,1 constitute approximately 6% of renal cortical neoplasms. Because
of their cytoplasmic features, many of these tumors may previously have been classified as clear
cell or granular RCC. The morphologic features include a solid growth pattern with sheets of cells
Oncocytomas of the kidney constitute approximately 6% to 9% of renal cortical neoplasms.5

They are benign neoplasms that require distinction
from a number of malignant renal epithelial neoplasms with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Distinction
from eosinophilic variant of chromophobe RCC
may be particularly difficult for pathologists with
less experience. Histologically, oncocytomas are
Fig. 3. (A) Eosinophilic variant of chromophobe RCC showing nuclear irregularities and perinuclear clearing.
(B) Renal oncocytoma with abundant pink cytoplasm similar to that in (A), but uniform round nuclei and absence
of perinuclear halos (HE; 100).

characterized by cells with deeply eosinophilic cytoplasm arranged in nests, cords, or tubules and
with uniform round, vesicular nuclei, often with
prominent central nucleoli (Fig. 3B).51,52 Electron
microscopy reveals cytoplasm loaded with mitochondria, which is responsible for the cytoplasmic
eosinophilia and a mahogany brown gross appearance.53,54 Uniformity of nuclear features is
the rule, although occasional isolated or groups
of cells may exhibit marked degenerative-appearing hyperchromasia and pleomorphism. Prominent papillary growth and extensive tumor
necrosis are not the features of renal oncocytoma.
Likewise, mitotic activity is rarely noted. A central,
stellate scar has been considered characteristic;
however, such scars can also be seen in other
low-grade renal cortical neoplasms. Microscopically, the scar may contain occasional entrapped
tumor cells exhibiting focal cytoplasmic clearing.
Other than in this scenario, clear cells are not a feature of renal oncocytoma. Tumor cells may infiltrate perirenal soft tissue, and may occasionally
be present within small and even the larger vessels. None of these features affect its benign clinical behavior. Although rare questionable reported
cases have metastasized,52 no known case has
died of the disease.
Genetically, oncocytomas do not exhibit 3p-, trisomy 7/17, or multiple combined chromosomal
losses. They commonly exhibit loss of chromosomes Y and 1, and a few cases have been
described with translocations involving chromosome 11.
Recently, the authors have described a group of
patients with multiple oncocytic lesions (oncocytosis).55 Among several characteristic morphologic
features, some had a hybrid morphology between
oncocytomas and chromophobe RCC, suggesting
that these tumors may be genetically or causally
related. In fact, there is a hypothesis that chromophobe tumors may represent a genetic/morphologic progression from oncocytoma. It is very
likely that many, if not all of those patients,
belonged to Birt-Hogg-Dube (BHD) syndrome
families.
contain foamy macrophages, but acute or chronic

inflammatory cells may be abundant within the tumor (Fig. 4). Characteristically, dysplastic or neoplastic cells may be present within adjacent renal
tubules. Cytoplasmic and luminal mucin is frequent. Most show immunoreactivity for carcinoembryogenic antigen, peanut lectin agglutinin,
and ulex europaeus agglutinin.57,58 Cytokeratins
34BE12 and CK 7 may be positive as well.
CDC may present at any age, although it tends
to occur in younger patients.57,59 More than 50%
of the patients present with metastatic disease.
In a recent large, Japanese series of 81 cases, regional lymph node metastasis was detected in
44% and distant metastasis in another 32%.59
Most patients die of disease within 3 years of
diagnosis.
Another tumor, which some investigators believe to be a particularly aggressive variant of
CDC, is the medullary carcinoma.6063 It preferentially occurs in young patients with sickle cell trait,
hemoglobin SC disease, or very rarely sickle cell
disease. Their morphologic features show some
overlaps with those seen in CDC and high-grade
urothelial tumors of the renal pelvis. Most reported
cases had metastatic disease at presentation. The
reported mean survivals in the two largest series to
date have been 15 weeks and 4 months,
respectively.60,63
TUBULOCYSTIC CARCINOMA
In the recent past, the morphologic spectrum of
collecting was expanded to include some lowgrade tumors characterized by a tubulocystic pattern of growth, tumor cells with low-grade nuclei,
and mucin production.64 More recently, the terminology of tubulocystic carcinoma of the kidney
has been proposed for these tumors.65,66 They
COLLECTING DUCT AND MEDULLARY

CARCINOMA
Collecting duct (Bellini duct) carcinoma (CDC) is
very rare, constituting approximately 1% of renal
epithelial tumors. In general, the tumors are centered in the renal medulla, particularly when small,
and show marked invasive multinodular growth
pattern with desmoplasia, highly atypical cytologic
features, and papillary, tubular, solid, or microcystic architecture.56 The papillae rarely, if ever,
Fig. 4. Collecting duct carcinoma. As is typical for this

tumor type, note the high-grade cytology, stromal
desmoplasia, and inflammatory cell infiltrate within
the stroma and epithelium of the tumor (HE; 100).
555
556
Tickoo & Gopalan

are grossly well-circumscribed. Microscopically,
besides the tubulocystic growth pattern, the tumor
cells show abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, and
usually round nuclei with prominent nucleoli. However, in the authors experience, not only do tumors with such pure morphologic features exist,
other tumors showing similar histology but admixed with high-grade CDC-like areas are also observed. Therefore, their relationship to collecting
duct carcinoma remains to be clarified.
UNCLASSIFIED RCC
Unclassified RCC form up to 6% of all renal epithelial tumors,5,29 and include renal carcinomas that
do not fit into any of the usual subtypes of renal
cortical tumors.67 Thus, tumors of unrecognizable
cell or architectural types, or those with apparent
composites of the recognized types, are all included in this category. While many of the tumors
are of high cytomorphologic grade and aggressive
clinical behavior, by definition they are not a pure
entity and include many other low-grade and less
aggressive tumors.
It is expected that with accumulation of tumors
and with more experience gained with them, pathologists will be in a better position to recognize
tumors with similar clinicopathologic features
within this category. That ability would enable the
reclassification of groups of tumors from the unclassified category as distinct entities, which is
exemplified by the next few tumor types.
MUCINOUS TUBULAR AND SPINDLE

CELL CARCINOMA
Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma is
unique among renal tumors; in spite of showing
a spindle cell (low-grade sarcomatoid) component, it usually does not behave in an aggressive
manner.68,69 Of the approximately 100 reported
cases in the literature, only 1 has had local lymph
node metastasis. This carcinoma predominantly
occurs in females, ranging in age from 17 to 78
years (average 53 years). Grossly, it is usually
well-circumscribed and located in the renal medulla. Histologically, the tumor is composed of
elongated, interconnected tubules, many appearing straight and with slit-like lumina, solid compressed cords, and prominent low-grade spindle
cell areas (Fig. 5). The nonspindled cells are low
cuboidal, showing a small amount of amphophilic
to eosinophilic cytoplasm, and low-grade blandappearing nuclei. Myxoid stroma is present in virtually all cases.70
Ultrastructural evaluation done on a few cases
shows close resemblance to the normal loop of
Fig. 5. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma. In

addition to the more round tubules and myxoid
stroma (left side), elongated tubules and spindle cells
with low-grade nuclei are seen in the right side of the
figure (HE; 100).
Henle.68,69 Comparative genomic hybridization

data available on a few cases shows frequent losses at chromosomes 1, 4q, 6, 8p, 11q, 13, 14 and
15, with gains at 11q, 16q, 17 and 20q. No evidence of VHL deletions, or trisomy 7 and 17 was
found by fluorescence in situ hybridization
analysis.69,71
ACQUIRED CYSTIC DISEASE

OF KIDNEY-ASSOCIATED RENAL CELL
CARCINOMA
The recently described RCC is associated with
end-stage kidneys with acquired cystic disease.72
Most, but not all, cases occur in patients on dialysis. The tumors are characteristically composed of
large eosinophilic cells with prominent nucleoli,
inter- and intracellular vacuoles (holes) imparting
a vaguely cribriform architecture, and intratumoral
oxalate crystals. Architecture is variable and there
may be papillary, acinar, tubular, and sheet-like
areas in variable proportions. Such architectural
features may have led in the past to many of these
being considered papillary, clear cell, or even unclassified RCC.73
Immunohistochemical staining for a-methylacylCoA racemase is strongly positive, whereas CK7 is
mostly negative.72 Some of these tumors behave
aggressively, metastasize, and may cause death.
The other group of tumors that, because of their
prominent clear cell cytology and often a papillary
architecture might sometimes have been considered as unclassified RCC, is the translocationassociated RCC described above.
HEREDITARY FORMS OF RENAL TUMORS

The majority of renal neoplasms are sporadic, although a small percentage may be hereditary,

such as the clear cell (conventional) RCCs associated with von Hippel-Lindau syndrome.7477 In all
forms of inherited renal neoplasms, tumors are
more likely to be diagnosed at an early age and
are more likely to be multifocal and bilateral.78
VHL disease is an autosomal dominant syndrome
characterized by retinal hemangiomas, clear cell
(conventional) RCCs and multiple renal cysts, cerebellar and spinal hemangioblastomas, pheochromocytomas, endocrine pancreatic tumors, and
epididymal cystadenomas. The tumor-suppressor
VHL gene, located at chromosome 3p25, can be
inactivated by various mutations, loss of heterozygosity, hypermethylations, or other alterations in
VHL modifier genes. Lack of normal VHL protein
increases the HIF-1a levels, resulting in overexpression of endothelial growth factors and culminating in a hypervascular state seen in most
VHL-related tumors, and possible tumorigenesis.
Other familial non-VHL clear cell (conventional)
RCC have been reported, most of which involve
translocations of chromosome 3 including
3p14 (Fragile Histidine Triad), 3q13.3 and 3q21
genes, while a few others do not involve chromosome 3.78,79
Hereditary forms of type 1 PRCC is associated
with activating mutations of c-MET proto-oncogene at chromosome 7q34.80 Up-regulation of
the gene results in the activation of a tyrosine kinase that is a receptor for hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor, and is involved in angiogenesis,
cellular motility, growth, invasion, and cellular differentiation. The renal tumors with trisomy 7 in
this syndrome harbor c-MET mutants in two of
the chromosome copies.78 The renal tumors associated with hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal
cell carcinoma syndrome are associated with mutations in fumarate hydratase (1q42.3-q43) gene,
and oftenthough not alwaysshow features of
type 2 PRCC.81
Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is another syndrome
recently recognized to be related to multifocal and
bilateral renal tumors. This autosomal dominant
syndrome is characterized by cutaneous lesions
(fibrofolliculomas, trichodiscomas, and acrochordons), spontaneous pneumothorax, bronchiectasis, and bronchospasm, colonic neoplasms, and
lipomas, all occurring in conjunction with the renal
tumors.82,83 The renal tumors in the authors experience are renal oncocytomas, chromophobe
RCC, or predominantly oncocytic neoplasms displaying hybrid features of both types. A recent
study on a large number of renal tumors from patients with BHD syndrome revealed similar findings.84 The BHD gene has been mapped to
chromosome 17p12-q11.2, and the exact mode
of tumorigenesis is not yet completely
elucidated.83 Of the families identified with familial

renal oncocytoma , a number of these have been
subsequently found to have BHD syndrome.78,79
Rarely, a constitutional reciprocal translocation
between 8q24.1 and 9q34.3 has been reported in
cases of bilateral, multifocal renal oncocytoma.85
IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY IN THE DIFFERENTIAL

DIAGNOSIS OF RENAL EPITHELIAL TUMORS,
AND ITS UTILITY IN LIMITED MATERIAL
Immunohistochemistry is potentially useful to differentiate among renal tumor subtypes, as well
as to confirm renal origin at a metastatic site.5 Numerous antibodies have been used and reported
to be of use in both these situations. Unfortunately
many of these antibodies are able to discriminate
only between better-differentiated tumor subtypes
when light microscopic evaluation is sufficient to
properly classify the tumor. In situations where
the antibodies are most often required, such as
high grade or poorly differentiated tumors, the
staining characteristics have traditionally been unreliable. However, in our more recent experience
some newly available antibodies are more useful
in such situations. CA IX appears to be among
the most useful in the differential diagnosis of renal
cell tumors.86,87 It shows diffuse and strong membranous reactivity in more than 90% of clear cell
RCC, compared with absent or at the most focal,
usually perinecrotic positivity in other common
subtypes of renal cell tumors.86,87 Interestingly,
this diffuse reactivity is retained even in the sarcomatoid components of most cases of clear cell
RCC.11 The authors find some other antibodies
of practical utility in the differential diagnosis of renal cell tumors, including c-kit (CD117), and
CK7.87,88
Depending on the subtype and the stage of the
renal tumor, as well as its expected biologic behavior, clinical comorbidities, and other aspects,
multiple therapeutic options, including in-situ ablation of the tumor, targeted therapies in a neoadjuvant setting, or even watchful waiting in selected
cases are now being offered to patients. In view
of these developments, availability of a robust
and dependable panel of immunohistochemical
stains has become even more important, as pathologists are now frequently being asked to render diagnosis on limited material. Using a select
panel of five antibodiesCA IX, CK7, c-kit, racemase, and CD10the authors recently reported
more than 90% diagnostic accuracy on in vivo
needle-core biopsies of renal cell tumors (Table 1).
This indicates that if pathologists are provided with
adequate biopsy samples, close attention to cytomorphologic features together with a judicious use
557
558
Tickoo & Gopalan
Table 1
Immunohistochemical profile of common renal cortical tumor subtypes using a small, practical panel
of antibodies
Antibody
Clear Cell
Papillary
Chromophobe
CA IX
11, Diffuse
membranous
CD10
11, Diffuse
membranous
, Focal,
predominantly
perinecrotic and
tips of papillae
1, Focal to diffuse,
usually luminal
membranous
11
CK7
Racemase
c-kit
11
of immunohistochemistry will allow for an accurate

diagnosis in the overwhelming majority of the
cases.88
In summary, recent advances in the study of renal neoplasms have allowed pathologists to match
the morphologic phenotype to the genotype, as
well as clinical behavior in a more accurate manner. It has allowed us to do away with entities,
such as granular and sarcomatoid RCC,
which we now know do not exist as specific tumor
types. Pathologists have also realized that Fuhrmans nuclear grading scheme is applicable to
clear cell RCC but its application for other tumor
types is debatable and needs further evaluation.
Antigen expression within renal tumor subtypes
is genetically driven and can be used, to a certain
extent, to properly classify tumors. Antigen expression at the cellular level may also of great utility in evaluating targeted therapy, and the
pathologist will play an important role in the development, characterization, and evaluation of targeted therapy in these diseases.
REFERENCES
1. Thoenes W, Storkel S, Rumpelt HJ. Human chromophobe cell renal carcinoma. Virchows Arch B Cell
Pathol Incl Mol Pathol 1985;48:20717.
2. Thoenes W, Storkel S, Rumpelt HJ. Histopathology
and classification of renal cell tumors (adenomas,
oncocytomas and carcinomas). The basic cytological and histopathological elements and their use
for diagnostics. Pathol Res Pract 1986;181:12543.
3. Kovacs G, Wilkens L, Papp T, et al. Differentiation
between papillary and nonpapillary renal cell carcinomas by DNA analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;
81:52730.
Oncocytoma
, Focal cytoplasmic
11, Cytoplasmic
with peripheral
accentuation
, Focal cytoplasmic
11
, Focal cytoplasmic
1
4. Linehan WM, Walther MM, Zbar B. The genetic basis of cancer of the kidney. J Urol 2003;170:
216372.
5. Reuter VE, Tickoo SK. Adult renal tumors. In:
Mills Carter, Greenson Oberman, Reuter Stoler,
editors. Sternbergs diagnostic surgical pathology.
4th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins; 2004. p. 195599.
6. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Sunitinib
versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:11524.
7. Bonsib SM. Renal veins and venous extension in
clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2007;
20:4453.
8. Bonsib SM, Gibson D, Mhoon M, et al. Renal sinus
involvement in renal cell carcinomas. Am J Surg
Pathol 2000;24:4518.
9. Thompson RH, Blute ML, Krambeck AE, et al. Patients with pT1 renal cell carcinoma who die from
disease after nephrectomy may have unrecognized
renal sinus fat invasion. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:
108993.
10. Reuter VE, Presti JC Jr. Contemporary approach to
the classification of renal epithelial tumors. Semin
Oncol 2000;27:12437.
11. Tickoo SK, Alden D, Olgac S, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha and its downstream molecules in sarcomatoid
12. de Peralta-Venturina M, Moch H, Amin M, et al. Sarcomatoid differentiation in renal cell carcinoma:
a study of 101 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:
27584.
13. Kovacs G, Erlandsson R, Boldog F, et al. Consistent
chromosome 3p deletion and loss of heterozygosity
in renal cell carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1988;85:15715.

14. Carroll PR, Murty VV, Reuter V, et al. Abnormalities at
chromosome region 3p1214 characterize clear cell
renal carcinoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1987;26:
2539.
15. Nordenson I, Ljungberg B, Roos G. Chromosomes
in renal carcinoma with reference to intratumor heterogeneity. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1988;32:
3541.
16. Walter TA, Berger CS, Sandberg AA. The cytogenetics of renal tumors. Where do we stand, where do
we go? Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1989;43:1534.
17. Teyssier JR, Ferre D. Chromosomal changes in renal
cell carcinoma. No evidence for correlation with clinical stage. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1990;45:
197205.
18. Zbar B. Von Hippel-Lindau disease and sporadic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Surv 1995;25:21932.
19. Linehan WM. Molecular targeting of VHL gene pathway in clear cell kidney cancer. J Urol 2003;170:
5934.
20. Pantuck AJ, Zeng G, Belldegrun AS, et al. Pathobiology, prognosis, and targeted therapy for renal
cell carcinoma: exploiting the hypoxia-induced
pathway. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:464152.
21. Kim HL, Seligson D, Liu X, et al. Using protein expressions to predict survival in clear cell renal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:546471.
22. Bui MH, Seligson D, Han KR, et al. Carbonic anhydrase IX is an independent predictor of survival in
advanced renal clear cell carcinoma: implications
for prognosis and therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2003;
9:80211.
23. Bui MH, Visapaa H, Seligson D, et al. Prognostic
value of carbonic anhydrase IX and KI67 as predictors of survival for renal clear cell carcinoma. J Urol
2004;171:24616.
24. Leibovich BC, Sheinin Y, Lohse CM, et al. Carbonic
anhydrase IX is not an independent predictor of outcome for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:475764.
25. Delahunt B, Eble JN. Papillary renal cell carcinoma:
a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study
of 105 tumors. Mod Pathol 1997;10:53744.
26. Delahunt B, Eble JN, McCredie MR, et al. Morphologic typing of papillary renal cell carcinoma: comparison of growth kinetics and patient survival in
66 cases. Hum Pathol 2001;32:5905.
27. Allory Y, Ouazana D, Boucher E, et al. Papillary renal
cell carcinoma. Prognostic value of morphological
subtypes in a clinicopathologic study of 43 cases.
Virchows Arch 2003;442:33642.
28. Jiang F, Richter J, Schraml P, et al. Chromosomal imbalances in papillary renal cell carcinoma: genetic
differences between histological subtypes. Am J
Pathol 1998;153:146773.
29. Amin MB, Tamboli P, Javidan J, et al. Prognostic impact of histologic subtyping of adult renal epithelial
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
neoplasms: an experience of 405 cases. Am J

Surg Pathol 2002;26:28191.
Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, et al. Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among
histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am J
Surg Pathol 2003;27:61224.
Presti JC Jr, Rao PH, Chen Q, et al. Histopathological, cytogenetic, and molecular characterization of
renal cortical tumors. Cancer Res 1991;51:154452.
Yoshida MA, Ohyashiki K, Ochi H, et al. Cytogenetic
studies of tumor tissue from patients with nonfamilial
renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 1986;46:213947.
Dal Cin P, Gaeta J, Huben R, et al. Renal cortical tumors. Cytogenetic characterization. Am J Clin Pathol
1989;92:40814.
Henn W, Zwergel T, Wullich B, et al. Bilateral multicentric papillary renal tumors with heteroclonal origin based on tissue-specific karyotype instability.
Cancer 1993;72:13158.
Ishikawa I, Shikura N, Ozaki M. Papillary renal cell
carcinoma with numeric changes of chromosomes
in a long-term hemodialysis patient: a karyotype
analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 1993;21:5536.
van den Berg E, van der Hout AH, Oosterhuis JW,
et al. Cytogenetic analysis of epithelial renal-cell tumors: relationship with a new histopathological classification. Int J Cancer 1993;55:2237.
de Jong B, Molenaar IM, Leeuw JA, et al. Cytogenetics of a renal adenocarcinoma in a 2-year-old child.
Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1986;21:1659.
Schmidt L, Junker K, Nakaigawa N, et al. Novel mutations of the MET proto-oncogene in papillary renal
carcinomas. Oncogene 1999;18:234350.
Tickoo SK, Reuter VE. Subtyping papillary renal cell
carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study of 103 cases.
Mod Pathol 2001;14:124A.
Argani P, Ladanyi M. Translocation carcinomas of
the kidney. Clin Lab Med 2005;25:36378.
Argani P, Antonescu CR, Couturier J, et al. PRCCTFE3 renal carcinomas: morphologic, immunohistochemical, ultrastructural, and molecular analysis of
an entity associated with the t(X;1) (p11.2;q21).
Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:155366.
Argani P, Olgac S, Tickoo SK, et al. Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma in adults: expanded clinical, pathologic, and genetic spectrum. Am J Surg
Pathol 2007;31:114960.
Argani P, Lae M, Hutchinson B, et al. Renal carcinomas with the t(6;11) (p21;q12): clinicopathologic features and demonstration of the specific Alpha-TFEB
gene fusion by immunohistochemistry, RT-PCR, and
DNA PCR. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:23040.
Weiss LM, Gelb AB, Medeiros LJ. Adult renal epithelial neoplasms. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:62435.
Bugert P, Gaul C, Weber K, et al. Specific genetic
changes of diagnostic importance in chromophobe
renal cell carcinomas. Lab Invest 1997;76:2038.
559
560
Tickoo & Gopalan

46. Schwerdtle RF, Storkel S, Neuhaus C, et al. Allelic
losses at chromosomes 1p, 2p, 6p, 10p, 13q, 17p,
and 21q significantly correlate with the chromophobe subtype of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer
Res 1996;56:292730.
47. Kovacs A, Kovacs G. Low chromosome number in
chromophobe renal cell carcinomas. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1992;4:2678.
48. Akhtar M, Al-Sohaibani MO, Haleem A, et al. Flow
cytometric DNA analysis of chromophobe cell carcinoma of the kidney. J Urol Pathol 1996;4:1523.
49. Crotty TB, Farrow GM, Lieber MM. Chromophobe
cell renal carcinoma: clinicopathological features of
50 cases. J Urol 1995;154:9647.
50. Motzer RJ, Bacik J, Mariani T, et al. Treatment outcome and survival associated with metastatic renal
cell carcinoma of non-clear-cell histology. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:237681.
51. Amin MB, Crotty TB, Tickoo SK, et al. Renal oncocytoma: a reappraisal of morphologic features with
clinicopathologic findings in 80 cases. Am J Surg
Pathol 1997;21:112.
52. Perez-Ordonez B, Hamed G, Campbell S, et al. Renal oncocytoma: a clinicopathologic study of 70
cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21:87183.
53. Tickoo SK, Lee MW, Eble JN, et al. Ultrastructural
observations on mitochondria and microvesicles in
renal oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and eosinophilic variant of conventional
(clear cell) renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol
2000;24:124756.
54. Erlandson RA, Shek TW, Reuter VE. Diagnostic significance of mitochondria in four types of renal epithelial neoplasms: an ultrastructural study of 60
tumors. Ultrastruct Pathol 1997;21:40917.
55. Tickoo SK, Reuter VE, Amin MB, et al. Renal oncocytosis: a morphologic study of fourteen cases. Am
J Surg Pathol 1999;23:1094101.
56. Srigley JR, Eble JN. Collecting duct carcinoma of
kidney. Semin Diagn Pathol 1998;15:5467.
57. Amin MB, Varma M, Tickoo SK, et al. Collecting duct
carcinoma of the kidney. Adv Anat Pathol 1997;4:
8594.
58. Rumpelt HJ, Storkel S, Moll R, et al. Bellini duct carcinoma: further evidence for this rare variant of renal
cell carcinoma. Histopathology 1991;18:11522.
59. Tokuda N, Naito S, Matsuzaki O, et al. Collecting
duct (Bellini duct) renal cell carcinoma: a nationwide
survey in Japan. J Urol 2006;176:403.
60. Davis CJ, Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA. Renal medullary carcinoma. The seventh sickle cell nephropathy.
Am J Surg Pathol 1995;19:111.
61. Avery RA, Harris JE, Davis CJ, et al. Renal medullary
carcinoma: clinical and therapeutic aspects of
a newly described tumor. Cancer 1996;78:12832.
62. Adsay NV, deRoux SJ, Sakr W, et al. Cancer as
a marker of genetic medical disease: an unusual
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
case of medullary carcinoma of the kidney. Am

J Surg Pathol 1998;22:2604.
Swartz MA, Karth J, Schneider DT, et al. Renal medullary carcinoma: clinical, pathologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic analysis with pathogenetic
implications. Urology 2002;60:10839.
MacLennan GT, Farrow GM, Bostwick DG. Lowgrade collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: report of 13 cases of low-grade mucinous tubulocystic
renal carcinoma of possible collecting duct origin.
Urology 1997;50:67984.
Amin MB, Paraf F, Cheville JC, et al. Tubulocystic
carcinoma of the kidney: clinicopathologic analysis
of 29 cases of a distinctive rare subtype of renal
cell carcinoma (RCC). Lab Invest 2004;84:137A.
Yang XJ, Zhou M, Hes O, et al. Tubulocystic carcinoma of the kidney: clinicopathologic and molecular
characterization. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:17787.
Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, et al, editors. Tumours
of the kidney. WHO classification of tumours. Lyon
(France): IARC Press; 2004. p. 101.
Parwani AV, Husain AN, Epstein JI, et al. Low-grade
myxoid renal epithelial neoplasms with distal nephron differentiation. Hum Pathol 2001;32:50612.
Srigley JR, Kapusta L, Reuter V, et al. Phenotypic,
molecular and ultrastructural studies of a novel low
grade renal epithelial neoplasm possibly related to
the loop of Henle. Mod Pathol. 2002;12:182A.
Fine SW, Argani P, DeMarzo AM, et al. Expanding
the histologic spectrum of mucinous tubular and
spindle cell carcinoma of the kidney. Am J Surg
Pathol 2006;30:155460.
Argani P, Netto G, Parwani A. Papillary renal cell carcinoma with low grade spindle cells lining angulated
tubules: a mimic of mucinous tubular and spindle
cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2008;21(Suppl 1):146A.
Tickoo SK, dePeralta-Venturina MN, Harik LR, et al.
Spectrum of epithelial neoplasms in end-stage renal
disease: an experience from 66 tumor-bearing kidneys with emphasis on histologic patterns distinct
from those in sporadic adult renal neoplasia. Am
J Surg Pathol 2006;30:14153.
Sule N, Yakupoglu U, Shen SS, et al. Calcium oxalate deposition in renal cell carcinoma associated
with acquired cystic kidney disease: a comprehensive study. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:44351.
Poston CD, Jaffe GS, Lubensky IA, et al. Characterization of the renal pathology of a familial form of renal cell carcinoma associated with von HippelLindau disease: clinical and molecular genetic implications. J Urol 1995;153:226.
Wagner JR, Linehan WM. Molecular genetics of renal cell carcinoma. Semin Urol Oncol 1996;14:
2449.
Bugert P, Kovacs G. Molecular differential diagnosis
of renal cell carcinomas by microsatellite analysis.
Am J Pathol 1996;149:20818.

77. Suzuki H, Ueda T, Komiya A, et al. Mutational state of
von Hippel-Lindau and adenomatous polyposis coli
genes in renal tumors. Oncology 1997;54:2527.
78. Bodmer D, van den Hurk W, van Groningen JJ, et al.
Understanding familial and non-familial renal cell
cancer. Hum Mol Genet 2002;11:248998.
79. Takahashi M, Kahnoski R, Gross D, et al. Familial
adult renal neoplasia. J Med Genet 2002;39:15.
80. Schmidt L, Duh FM, Chen F, et al. Germline and somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the
MET proto-oncogene in papillary renal carcinomas.
Nat Genet 1997;16:6873.
81. Merino MJ, Torres-Cabala C, Pinto P, et al. The morphologic spectrum of kidney tumors in hereditary
leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC)
syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:157885.
82. Zbar B, Alvord WG, Glenn G, et al. Risk of renal and
colonic neoplasms and spontaneous pneumothorax
in the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:393400.
83. Khoo SK, Giraud S, Kahnoski K, et al. Clinical and
genetic studies of Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome.
J Med Genet 2002;39:90612.
84. Pavlovich CP, Walther MM, Eyler RA, et al. Renal tumors in the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Am J Surg
Pathol 2002;26:154252.
85. Teh BT, Blennow E, Giraud S, et al. Bilateral multiple
renal oncocytomas and cysts associated with a constitutional translocation (8;9) (q24.1;q34.3) and
a rare constitutional VHL missense substitution.
Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1998;21:2604.
86. Al-Ahmadie HA, Alden D, Qin L-X, et al. Carbonic
anhydrase IX expression in clear cell renal cell
carcinoma: an immunohistochemical study comparing two antibodies. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;
32:37782.
87. Tu JJ, Chen Y-T, Hyjek E, et al. Carbonic anhydrase
IX as a highly sensitive and specific marker of clear
cell renal cell carcinoma: A comparative immunohistochemical study using a panel of commonly utilized
antibodies in the differential diagnosis of renal cell
tumors. Mod Pathol 2005;18:169A.
88. Al-Ahmadie HA, Alden D, Olgac S, et al. The role of
immunohistochemical evaluation of adult renal cortical tumors on core biopsy: an ex-vivo study. Mod
Pathol 2007;20:134A.
561
Familial and Hereditary

Renal Cancer Syndromes
Jonathan A. Coleman, MD
KEYWORDS
Hereditary kidney cancer von Hippel-Lindau
Birt Hogg Dube
Hereditary leiomyomatosis renal cell carcinoma
Hereditary papillary renal carcinoma VHL
Hereditary kidney cancer and familial renal cancer

syndromes comprise an important group of
patients in which early screening and careful follow-up of affected individuals and their relatives
can positively impact disease-related morbidity
and survival. Statistics on the incidence and per
capita increase in cases of kidney cancer have
been well documented, although not so well
understood is the true proportion of patients who
have familial cancers. Others have estimated that
3% to 5% of patients who have renal cancer
have inherited forms of disease; however, there
is evidence that a familial history of renal cancer
or associated cancer syndromes may be much
more common.1,2 Several factors may contribute
to underreporting, including lack of available complete family history, low clinical suspicion at the
time of evaluation, and the limited current understanding of genetically linked cancer syndromes.
Hereditary renal cancers (HRC) may be defined
broadly as the finding of a single cancer or constellation of tumors in more than one first- or seconddegree family member that may be passed on
through germline mutations. Hereditary kidney
cancer syndromes that have been identified with
known gene mutations include von Hippel-Lindau
disease (VHL), hereditary papillary renal cancer
(HPRC), Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome (BHD), hereditary leiomyomatosis renal cell carcinoma syndrome (HLRCC), and tuberous sclerosis complex
(TSC). Several other presumed heritable tumor
groups have been observed but no direct mechanistic evidence has been discovered, as in patients
who have familial renal oncocytoma, multilocular
cystic nephroma and lymphoma.1 Other hereditary
cancer syndromes with increased risk of associated kidney cancer also have been reported, and
it is likely that more may exist.
Improved techniques of genetic research have
facilitated the relatively recent discovery of the
mutations associated with many HRC syndromes.
Before identification of the genes responsible, heritable kidney cancer was identified based on the
constellation of clinical findings used to define
the phenotypic manifestations of the syndrome.
These findings still provide the best initial means
for evaluating individuals suspected of having
hereditary kidney cancer and for screening their
relatives.
Screening approaches have been described for
many of the known HRC syndromes based on the
study of families that have these diseases and the
ages at which relevant phenotypic expression may
be identified.3 Effective evaluation and treatment
is approached best with a multidisciplinary team
of physicians and nurses aware of the syndrome
and it management. Often, frequent testing and
imaging studies need to be coordinated between
services, as do medical and surgical interventions
when indicated. Combined approaches to care
may help limit the risks to patients associated
with the requirements of management, including
radiographic exposure and surgical procedures.
Genetic testing, although available and highly
reliable, must involve careful discussion of the
many factors and consequences that come into
play and should be performed by a trained genetic
counselor. Many patients are intensely interested
in pursuing genetic testing when there is a suspicion of a hereditary basis for their disease, but
Department of Surgery/Urology Division, Weill Cornell Medical College, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center, Box 12, 1275 York Avenue, NY 10021, USA
E-mail address: colemaj1@mskcc.org
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 563572
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.014

564
Coleman
they may not be fully aware of the ethical and legal
issues that can be raised. These issues can include the duty to inform relatives, the impact on
spousal relationships within the family, and prenatal and infant testing.4 Many have raised concerns
about discrimination in employment or insurance
on the basis of a genetically inherited disease,
prompting the passage of the Genetic Information
Non-discrimination Act by the U.S. Congress in
2007. The expansion of the understanding of the
human genome and the search for genetic causes
for disease are promising but also are complex
and challenging for both the individual and society.
Investigations of patients who have clinical manifestations of HRC syndromes have helped identify
genes and associated germline mutations that
result in cancerous and benign neoplasms in
a variety of organ systems. Variable phenotypic
expression within families has been recognized,
although the mechanism remains unclear; it is
speculated that possible environmental influences
or epigenetic mechanisms are at play. Importantly,
the finding of cancer genes related to the formation of seemingly unrelated tumors in separate
organ systems has helped shed light on the pathogenesis of cancer in a variety of tissues and the
common pathways they share.
Although familial forms of kidney cancer affect
a limited group of patients, the investigation of
these syndromes has had valuable impact on the
management of renal cancer. For most major subtypes of renal cortical tumors there is an associated heritable form of the disease identified with
a familial cohort. Screening of affected families
and careful follow-up has provided a greater understanding of the natural history of these tumors,
allowing insight into growth and other characteristics of the different forms of kidney cancer.
Somatic mutations in these same genes have
been found responsible for a large percentage of
sporadic kidney cancers as well, forming the basis
for an emerging understanding of the molecular
pathogenesis for kidney cancer.
HEREDITARY KIDNEY CANCER SYNDROMES

von Hippel-Lindau Disease
In 1895, Dr. Eugen von Hippel, an ophthalmologist,
described a 23-year-old patient who suffered progressive ocular angiomas causing blindness in
both eyes. Years later, at the age of 47 years,
this same patient developed notable neurologic
progression of his disease and died; autopsy findings were reported by Brandt.5 This report identified brain and ocular hemangioblastomas and
pancreatic and renal cysts. Lindau, a Swedish
pathologist, later linked the findings of brain,
spinal, and ocular hemangioblastomas as a single

disease entity that could also be associated with
pancreatic and renal cysts and tumors, which he
reported in 1926.5 The von Hippel-Lindau
syndrome was named by Davison in 1936, who
described the many manifestations of the disease.
The syndrome includes several neoplasms,
including brain and ocular hemangioblastomas,
endolymphatic sac tumors of the ear, conventional
clear cell renal cancer and renal cysts, pheochromocytoma, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors
and cysts, and cysts in the epididymis of the testis
in men and of the broad ligament in women. In isolated cases pulmonary cysts have been seen, but
as yet these cysts are not considered a part of the
syndrome.
Genetics of von Hippel-Lindau disease
Genetic studies have identified the VHL gene located on the short arm of chromosome 3 (3p2625).6 The VHL gene and its product (pVHL)
function as a tumor suppressor gene through the
regulation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha
(HIF1a) and hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha
(HIF2a).7 The VHL protein stabilizes HIF1a and
HIF2a by forming a complex with elongin B and
C in association with cullin-2.8,9 Together the
pVHL/elongin BC/cullin-2 complex binds to
HIF1a and HIF2a and aid in targeting the bound
HIF molecule for ubiquitin-mediated proteosomal
degradation.7 Under conditions of hypoxia, or
when pVHL is dysfunctional because of mutation
(pseudohypoxia), HIF is allowed to regulate several proteins involved in the pathways of angiogenesis and proliferation, including vascular
endothelial growth factor, transforming growth
factor alpha, and platelet-derived growth factor
bets.10 Mutations in VHL lead to dysregulation
and overaccumulation of HIF1a and HIF2a, causing activation of pathways for neovascularization
and cellular proliferation in target tissues.11,12
Inheritance of VHL is an autosomal dominant
germline mutation resulting in a heterozygous,
highly penetrant form of disease affecting 1 person
in 36,000. The development of a second mutation
causing deletion of the normal VHL allele leads to
tumor formation in affected individuals. More
than 300 different types of mutations have been
described that involve the three exons of the VHL
gene.13,14 Differences in the phenotype associated
with VHL mutations have been identified and are
thought to be related to the location and type of
mutation.1315 Clustering of certain tumor types
from variations in phenotypic expression have
been characterized broadly into four main groups
(Table 1). Type 1 describes VHL kindreds who
do not develop pheochromocytomas. In type 2
Familial and Hereditary Renal Cancer Syndromes
Table 1
Subtypes of von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) syndrome by phenotype
VHL Group
Phenotype
Genotype Mutations
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Low risk of pheochromocytoma

High risk of pheochromocytoma
Hemangiomas, low risk of renal cell carcinoma
Hemangiomas, high risk of renal cell carcinoma
Pheochromocytoma predominant
Deletions, truncations
Missense substitutions
1
2
2a
2b
2c
families, pheochromocytomas are more common;

this category may be subdivided further into three
subtypes: 2a has low risk for renal cancer, 2b has
a high risk for renal cancer, and 2c has pheochromocytoma only.16 It is unclear how these subtypes
relate to forms of mutations in VHL and the resultant variety of seemingly dissimilar tumor types in
an isolated number of organ systems.
Clinical features
All individuals who inherit VHL gene mutations
express some form of the phenotype, although
significant variation in the severity of disease can
be seen even in families who share the same
mutation.17 Earliest manifestations, particularly
ocular and brain tumors, can be seen in children
and infants.18 By age 25 years, most affected individuals have a detectable lesion.3 Multiorgan
involvement often requires the attention and coordination of clinical care by a number of specialties.
Screening and follow-up regimens for patients
who have VHL have been described.3 Ocular evaluation should be performed in neonates and
followed annually. Neurologic, otologic, and endocrine evaluation of children should be initiated at
age 8 years or earlier for any signs associated
with central nervous system involvement or pheochromocytoma including tinnitus, vertigo, symptoms of loss of balance, palpitations, sweating,
or frequent headaches. Abdominal imaging with
ultrasound is recommended starting at age 8 years
to evaluate the kidneys, adrenals, and pancreas.
An MRI of the brain and spine is recommended
at age 11 years. Routine CT scan imaging usually
is initiated at about the age of 18 years and
repeated as clinically indicated. When possible,
efforts should be made to limit radiation exposure
from frequent imaging studies.
Although ocular and central nervous system
hemangiomas have been the most common finding and cause of morbidity for patients who have
VHL, kidney cancer has been the leading cause
of death. Renal lesions, found in 40% of patients
who have VHL, typically are multifocal and bilateral
with cystic and partly cystic lesions detected

(Fig. 1). Management strategies focus on preservation of renal function and limiting intervention
until solid tumors reach 3 cm in diameter on imaging studies.19 Nephron-sparing surgery at the time
of surgical intervention involves the removal of all
appreciable lesions from the kidney with priority
given to lesions containing solid components,
although an attempt also should be made to remove more simple-appearing cystic lesions
(Fig. 2). Because patients are at lifetime risk for
forming tumors, repeat procedures commonly
are necessary and hold a greater likelihood of
complications, although reasonable functional
outcomes can be obtained.20,21 Minimally invasive
approaches including laparoscopic and robotic
partial nephrectomy for multiple tumors and
percutaneous ablation procedures have been
described with favorable results at experienced
centers.2224 Long-term outcomes with regard to
efficacy and renal function have not been
reported.
Pheochromocytomas are detected in type
2 forms of the disease and can pose a significant
threat to patients if unrecognized, particularly during surgery for hemangioblastomas where there is
risk of severe bleeding. Functional adrenal studies
Fig. 1. Axial abdominal CT in a patient who has VHL

demonstrating the spectrum of multifocal, bilateral
renal cysts and semicystic and solid renal tumors.
Small cysts and enhancing neuroendocrine tumor
are visible in the uncinate process of the pancreas
(circled).
565
566
Coleman
Fig. 2. Operative images of multiple renal cysts and tumors before (left) and after (right) excision with nephronsparing techniques to treat all visible sites of disease.
should be performed annually in all patients who

have VHL, and it is recommended that metaiodobenzylguanidine studies be performed in
patients who have positive functional studies
because of the possibility of extra-adrenal paragangliomas: these tumors may be multiple and
reside in atypical sites including the paravesicle
space (Fig. 3). Surgical excision using open or laparoscopic techniques typically is performed with
perioperative adrenergic blockade. Pheochromocytomas involving the adrenal gland may be
resected safely using partial adrenalectomy
approaches to spare a portion of the normal adrenal tissue and prevent the need for lifelong
replacement steroid therapy.2527
Hereditary Papillary Renal Carcinoma

Genetics of hereditary papillary
renal carcinoma
Type 1 HPRC has been linked to an activating
mutation in the c-Met oncogene on chromosome
7 (7q31).28 Tumors from patients who have heritable and sporadic forms of type 1 papillary renal
tumors have demonstrated this defect in c-Met,
Fig. 3. Axial pelvic MRI of a female patient who has

VHL demonstrating extra-adrenal right perivesical
pheochromocytoma (arrow) at the bladder neck adjacent to the ureter.
which causes aberrant activity of the intracellular

tyrosine kinase domain of the membrane-bound
c-Met receptor, producing the cascade of activation of the hepatocyte growth factor/c-Met pathway.29,30 Germline defects in c-Met have been
identified in affected individuals; these defects
may be passed on in an autosomal dominant pattern with variable penetrance, requiring trisomy of
chromosome 7 with duplication of the mutated
parental allele.31,32
Clinical features
HPRC was described initially in 1994 with further
features of the disease discovered through
screening and clinical studies of affected
kindreds.32,33 Patients inheriting the mutation
show a variable degree of penetrance exhibited
by the formation of renal tumors that often are
multifocal and bilateral. As far as has been
determined, the formation of papillary renal tumors
is the only phenotype associated with the mutation. Median age of survival for affected members
of these families was 52 years. Tumors often
were discovered incidentally by radiographic
screening.32
Management of patients who have HPRC
includes genetic counseling and screening within
families because of the often insidious nature of
these occult tumors. Preferred treatment is surgical excision with nephron-sparing approaches
when possible, recognizing that these tumors
often are multifocal. There are data suggesting
that expectant management for HPRC tumors,
allowing growth up to 3 cm in diameter before
resection, does not jeopardize long-term survival
or risk of metastases.34
Birt-Hogg-Dube Syndrome
Hornstein and Knickenberg35 were the first to
describe a syndrome of perifollicular skin lesions

of the face and trunk in three first-degree relatives
from two generations suggesting an inherited
dermatologic disorder associated with colonic
polyposis. In 1977, 2 years after this earlier report,
Drs. Birt, Hogg, and Dube36 presented their work
on dermatologic findings in 15 of 70 family
members who developed skin nodules after age
25 years characterizing a genodermatosis consisting of fibrofolliculomas, trichodiscomas, and acrochordons. More recently, the cutaneous findings
described by Hornstein and Knickenberg35 and
by Birt and colleagues36 have been shown to
reflect a spectrum of a single dermatopathology
resulting from abnormal deposits of folliculin, the
BHD gene product.3740 Other associated findings
now include renal tumors and pulmonary cysts or
blebs that can cause spontaneous pneumothoraces.4143 A host of other disease processes also
have been encountered in patients who have
BHD, although inconsistent data have failed to
prove an association with the known mutation.
These entities include multinodular goiter, medullary thyroid carcinoma, parotid oncocytoma, and
colonic polyposis.39
Genetics of Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome
Linkage studies have identified and localized the
BHD gene to chromosome 17 (17p12q11) with
inheritance demonstrating an autosomal dominant pattern.28,44 The BHD gene codes for the
folliculin protein which becomes abnormally truncated and accumulates in certain tissues of patients who have BHD gene mutations. Folliculin
has been proposed to take part in regulation of
the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway
through recently described folliculin-interacting
protein and 50 -AMPactivated protein kinase.45
BHD normally is found in a variety of organs including brain, parotid gland, lung, pancreas,
breast, prostate, kidney, and skin.46 Absence of
BHD mRNA in renal tumors from patients who
have the syndrome supports its role as a tumor
suppressor gene.
Clinical features
Before the identification of the gene, diagnosis of
BHD was made on clinical findings alone. The
classic triad of skin fibrofolliculomas, pulmonary
cysts, and renal tumors, as characterized in original screening studies of multigenerational families,
defined the phenotype.37,47 Zbar and colleagues48
reported on 223 screened members of 33 families
with the disease, identifying 98 affected individuals
with clinical findings and 13 haplotype carriers. Of
the 111 persons who had genetic mutations in
BHD, 14% had renal tumors, compared with 2%
of the nonaffected family members. Spontaneous
pneumothoraces, seen predominantly in younger

family members (< 40 years), were encountered
in 23% of individuals who had BHD and in 1% of
nonaffected family members. Only a subset of
patients were evaluated with high-resolution lung
CT scans, which identified lung cysts in 83% of
family members who had BHD and in 10% of nonaffected relatives. Importantly, colonic polyps,
which had been reported as part of the syndrome,
were evaluated and found to have a statistically
similar prevalence among family members with
and without BHD. A more recent study in 50 new
syndromic families demonstrated cutaneous manifestations in 90% of the family members who had
BHD and renal tumors in 34% of affected
relatives.49
Renal tumors found in BHD are not as uniform
as those encountered in other HRC syndromes.
Tumor histologies include chromophobe tumors,
oncocytoma, clear cellcarcinoma, and hybrid
oncocytic tumors composed of elements of oncocytoma and chromophobe tumors. The approximate distribution of these cancers was evaluated
in 130 tumors from 30 confirmed cases: 50%
were hybrid oncocytoma/chromophobe tumors,
34% were chromophobe tumors, 9% were
conventional clear cellcarcinoma, 5% were oncocytoma, and 2 5 were papillary tumors.50 Discordant histology was identified in 80% of patients,
with a majority occurring as multifocal and/or
bilateral tumors. Mean age at diagnosis in this
cohort was 51 years.
Although clinical series suggest that most renal
tumors may occur in older patients, significant
tumors have been reported in younger patients. A
locally invasive oncocytic tumor has been
described in a 35-year-old man who developed
subsequent pulmonary metastases of similar histology, and clear cell carcinoma has been
resected from a patient at age 20 years.51 Leter
and colleagues52 described a 39-year-old patient
who had BHD and a renal tumor of mixed histology,
including clear cell components, which developed
distant progression resulting in death. These examples emphasize the heterogeneity of renal tumors
encountered in BHD that may belie the indolent
characteristics often attributed to the oncocytomas
and chromophobe renal cancers associated with
the disease. Untreated local tumor growth, even
for more benign histologies, can result in
progression to renal insufficiency and failure. For
these reasons, tumors in patients who have BHD
should be evaluated closely with nephron-sparing
approaches initiated when possible. Intermediate
data suggest that, as in patients who have VHL
and HPRC, these tumors may be observed safely
up to a size of 3 cm before intervention.34,42
567
568
Coleman
Hereditary Leiomyomatosis Renal
Cell Carcinoma
HLRCC is a rare inherited disorder in which
affected individuals are at risk of developing cutaneous and uterine leiomyomas and renal cell
carcinoma. Affected HLRCC kindreds are characterized by germline mutation of the Krebs cycle enzyme, fumarate hydratase (FH). Recent studies
have suggested that a poorly defined but particularly lethal form of renal cell carcinoma is associated with HLRCC. These tumors initially were
described histologically as papillary neoplasms
but, because of their aggressive clinical behavior,
were classified separately as type 2 papillary tumors or were potentially misclassified as collecting
duct tumors.53 With further experience and more
refined characterization of the pathologic features,
this nomenclature has been abandoned at experienced centers, and the term HLRCC renal tumors is used now.54
Genetics of hereditary leiomyomatosis renal
cell carcinoma
Genetic alteration in HLRCC has been mapped to
a region on chromosome 1 (1q42.3-43) containing
10 exons encoding for FH.55,56 Germline mutations
in the gene may be inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion. Phenotypic expression shows high
penetrance for cutaneous leiomyomas and uterine
fibromas, leading many early investigators to refer
to the syndrome as multiple cutaneous and uterine leiomyomatosis or multiple leiomyomatosis.55,57 The occurrence of renal tumors among
patients who have the syndrome has been estimated at 2% to 21%, a prevalence low enough
to prompt some researchers to continue to differentiate between multiple leiomyomatosis and
HLRCC although they represent the same disease.56,58,59 In the syndrome of HLRCC, loss of
heterozygosity reveals the tumor suppressor function of the gene, demonstrating impaired enzymatic function of FH with resultant effects in
Krebs cycle catabolism.60 Biallelic loss of FH in
several models indicate that aberrant signaling
may be mediated through HIF-dependent pathways, suggesting that mechanisms of pseudohypoxia may play a role in tumorigenesis in
a similar fashion to VHL.7,60,61 Reports of clear
cell histology with FH mutation in a patient who
had HLRCC may support a common mechanism
of tumorigenesis through HIF activation.62,63
Clinical features
Clinical features of this disease are notable for
uterine leiomyomas (fibroids) of significant severity
for which, in a recently described series in the
United States, as many as 89% of affected women
underwent hysterectomy, 44% of them before the

age of 30 years.64 Isolated cases of uterine leiomyosarcomas have been reported. (Ylisaukko
2006) Most patients who have the syndrome harbor some form of cutaneous leiomyoma, although
these lesions may be subtle and difficult to identify.
These features of cutaneous lesions and a striking
familial history for highly symptomatic uterine
fibroids are helpful for clinical screening of patients
before considering genetic testing that may be
impractical or unreliable.
Patients who have renal tumors may exhibit an
aggressive, rapidly progressive disease with evidence of advanced stages of metastases despite
small primary tumor size.65,66 The National Cancer
Institute reported a series of 19 surgically managed patients who had HLRCC renal tumors; the
median age was 39 years. Four of seven patients
who had T1 tumors (% 7.0 cm) had regional lymph
node involvement at the time of initial surgery, and
9 of 19 (49%) had evidence of metastases at the
time of initial diagnosis.67 Based on these observations, careful evaluation and regular follow-up,
including annual abdominal imaging studies, is
required for patients who have HLRCC. Suspicious renal lesions may appear partly cystic and
need more frequent imaging evaluation. Interval
growth or change in character may require intervention. The role of nephron-sparing surgery has
been questioned in this setting, emphasizing that
any surgical approach must be undertaken with
care.67,68 Preoperative positron emission tomography scans may prove beneficial when lymph
node or nonlocalized disease is suspected.
Tuberous Sclerosis
An autosomal dominant disorder with renal manifestations, tuberous sclerosis affects as many as
1 person in 6000. TSC typically is characterized
by seizures, mental retardation, and the development of hamartomas in multiple organs as a result
of mutations in either the TSC1 or TSC2 gene.69
The gene products hamartin and tuberin together
form a protein complex that inhibits activation of
the downstream pathways of mammalian target
of rapamycin.70 Aberrant function of the hamartin-tuberin complex through mutation reveals their
role as tumor suppressor genes.
TSC1 has been mapped to chromosome
9 (9q34), and TSC2 is found on chromosome
16 (16p13.3).7173 Similar to other heritable syndromes, TSC may express a spectrum of severity
depending on the type and location of the mutation. Differences in the phenotype have been
linked to mutations in either TSC1 or TSC2 with
more severe manifestations of the syndrome,
Table 2
Biologic basis of hereditary kidney tumor syndromes: comparison of described hereditary renal tumor
syndromes with biologic and clinical correlates
Syndrome
Gene/Protein
Function
Pathwaya
Phenotype
VHL
3p25/pVHL
Tumor
suppressor
HIF
HPRC
Oncogent
BHD
7q31/c-Met
tyrosine
kinase domain
17p12/folliculin
Hepatocyte
growth
factor /c-Met
Mammalian
target of
rapamycin
Central nervous
system/ocular
hemangioblastoma
Endolymphatic sac
tumors
Pheochromocytoma
Pancreatic
neuroendocrine
tumors
Clear cell renal cell
carcinoma
Papillary type 1 renal
cell carcinoma
HLRCC
1q42.3/fumarase
Tumor
suppressor
HIF
TSC
TSC1 9q34TSC2
16p13.3 tubulin/
hamartin
Tumor
suppressor
Mammalian
target of
rapamycin
Tumor
suppressor
Fibrofolliculomas
Pulmonary blebs
Chromophobe/
oncocytoma/clear
cell renal cell
carcinoma
Skin leiomyoma
Uterine leiomyoma/
sarcoma
HLRCC renal cancer
Angiomyolipoma
Clear cell renal cell
carcinoma
Putative primary pathway for mechanism of action.
including mental retardation and renal lesions,

highly associated with mutations in TSC2.74 Renal
manifestations seen in TSC include renal angiomyolipomas, cysts, and clear cell carcinoma. In
a series of 490 patients reported by Sancak and
colleagues,75 TSC2 mutations were significantly
associated with renal cysts, angiomyolipomas,
and mental retardation. Rakowski and colleagues76 reported on renal manifestations seen
in 167 patients who had TSC and noted the presence of renal lesions in 58% of these patients. Of
the patients who had renal lesions, 85% had angiomyolipomas, 45% had cysts, and 4% had clear
cell carcinoma.
events underlying tumorigenesis in patients who

have HRC and elucidating the downstream alterations resulting from these events, the mechanisms by which such processes can be blocked
or reversed are being revealed slowly (Table 2).
The discovery of these same mutations and
involved pathways in nonrenal tumors and sporadic forms of cancer has helped usher in the era
of molecular therapeutics and alternative management strategies for the treatment of kidney cancer.
Awareness of and familiarity with known HRC
syndromes surely will lead to the detection of
new cancer syndromes and will broaden the
understanding of cancer biology.
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
The investigation of hereditary kidney cancer

syndromes has uncovered the tremendous gains
to be made in merging genetics research with clinical medicine. Through understanding the primary
1. Zbar B, Glenn G, Merino M, et al. Familial renal

carcinoma: clinical evaluation, clinical subtypes
and risk of renal carcinoma development. J Urol
2007;177(2):4615 [discussion: 465].
569
570
Coleman
2. Rini BI, Campbell SC, Rathmell WK. Renal cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2006;18(3):28996.
3. Lonser RR, Glenn GM, Walther M, et al. von HippelLindau disease. Lancet 2003;361(9374):205967.
4. Offit K, Thom P. Ethical and legal aspects of cancer
genetic testing. Semin Oncol 2007;34(5):43543.
5. Molino D, Sepe J, Anastasio P, et al. The history of
von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Nephrol 2006;
19(Suppl 10):S11923.
6. Seizinger BR, Rouleau GA, Ozelius LJ, et al. Von
Hippel-Lindau disease maps to the region of chromosome 3 associated with renal cell carcinoma.
Nature 1988;332(6161):2689.
7. Isaacs JS, Jung YJ, Mole DR, et al. HIF overexpression
correlates with biallelic loss of fumarate hydratase in
renal cancer: novel role of fumarate in regulation of
HIF stability. Cancer Cell 2005;8(2):14353.
8. Pause A, Lee S, Worrell RA, et al. The von HippelLindau tumor-suppressor gene product forms a stable complex with human CUL-2, a member of the
Cdc53 family of proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1997;94(6):215661.
9. Lonergan KM, Iliopoulos O, Ohh M, et al. Regulation
of hypoxia-inducible mRNAs by the von HippelLindau tumor suppressor protein requires binding
to complexes containing elongins B/C and Cul2.
Mol Cell Biol 1998;18(2):73241.
10. Bratslavsky G, Sudarshan S, Neckers L, et al. Pseudohypoxic pathways in renal cell carcinoma. Clin
Cancer Res 2007;13(16):466771.
11. Linehan WM, Vasselli J, Srinivasan R, et al. Genetic
basis of cancer of the kidney: disease-specific
approaches to therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2004;
10(18 Pt 2):6282S9S.
12. Kaelin WG Jr. The von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein and clear cell renal carcinoma. Clin
Cancer Res 2007;13(2 Pt 2):680s4s.
13. Gallou C, Chauveau D, Richard S, et al. Genotypephenotype correlation in von Hippel-Lindau families
with renal lesions. Hum Mutat 2004;24(3):21524.
14. Ong KR, Woodward ER, Killick P, et al. Genotypephenotype correlations in von Hippel-Lindau
disease. Hum Mutat 2007;28(2):1439.
15. Wong WT, Agron E, Coleman HR, et al. Genotypephenotype correlation in von Hippel-Lindau disease
with retinal angiomatosis. Arch Ophthalmol 2007;
125(2):23945.
16. Chen F, Kishida T, Yao M, et al. Germline mutations
in the von Hippel-Lindau disease tumor suppressor
gene: correlations with phenotype. Hum Mutat
1995;5(1):6675.
17. Maranchie JK, Afonso A, Albert PS, et al. Solid renal
tumor severity in von Hippel Lindau disease is
related to germline deletion length and location.
Hum Mutat 2004;23(1):406.
18. Wong WT, Agron E, Coleman HR, et al. Clinical characterization of retinal capillary hemangioblastomas
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
in a large population of patients with von HippelLindau disease. Ophthalmology 2008;115(1):1818.

Duffey BG, Choyke PL, Glenn G, et al. The relationship between renal tumor size and metastases in
patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Urol
2004;172(1):635.
Bratslavsky G, Liu JJ, Johnson AD, et al. Salvage
partial nephrectomy for hereditary renal cancer:
feasibility and outcomes. J Urol 2008;179(1):6770.
Herring JC, Enquist EG, Chernoff A, et al. Parenchymal sparing surgery in patients with hereditary renal
cell carcinoma: 10-year experience. J Urol 2001;
165(3):77781.
Hwang JJ, Walther MM, Pautler SE, et al. Radio
frequency ablation of small renal tumors: intermediate results. J Urol 2004;171(5):18148.
Coleman J, Singh A, Pinto P, et al. Radiofrequencyassisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: clinical
and histologic results. J Endourol 2007;21(6):
6005.
Rogers CG, Singh A, Blatt AM, et al. Robotic partial
nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical
technique. Eur Urol 2008;53(3):51423.
Baghai M, Thompson GB, Young WF Jr, et al. Pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas in von
Hippel-Lindau disease: a role for laparoscopic and
cortical-sparing surgery. Arch Surg 2002;137(6):
6829.
Diner EK, Franks ME, Behari A, et al. Partial adrenalectomy: the National Cancer Institute experience.
Urology 2005;66(1):1923.
Nambirajan T, Leeb K, Neumann HP, et al. Laparoscopic adrenal surgery for recurrent tumours in
patients with hereditary phaeochromocytoma. Eur
Urol 2005;47(5):6226.
Schmidt L, Duh FM, Chen F, et al. Germline and
somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of
the MET proto-oncogene in papillary renal carcinomas. Nat Genet 1997;16(1):6873.
Dharmawardana PG, Giubellino A, Bottaro DP.
Hereditary papillary renal carcinoma type I. Curr
Mol Med 2004;4(8):85568.
Choi JS, Kim MK, Seo JW, et al. MET expression in
sporadic renal cell carcinomas. J Korean Med Sci
2006;21(4):6727.
Fischer J, Palmedo G, von Knobloch R, et al. Duplication and overexpression of the mutant allele of the
MET proto-oncogene in multiple hereditary papillary
renal cell tumours. Oncogene 1998;17(6):7339.
Zbar B, Glenn G, Lubensky I, et al. Hereditary
papillary renal cell carcinoma: clinical studies in
10 families. J Urol 1995;153(3 Pt 2):90712.
Zbar B, Tory K, Merino M, et al. Hereditary papillary
renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1994;151(3):5616.
Grubb RL, Corbin NS, Choyke P, et al. Analysis of
3-cm tumor size threshold for intervention in patients
with Birt-Hogg-Dube and hereditary papillary renal
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
cancer [abstract 980]. San Antonio (TX): American

Urological Association National Conference; 2005.
Hornstein OP, Knickenberg M. Perifollicular fibromatosis cutis with polyps of the colona cutaneo-intestinal syndrome sui generis. Arch Dermatol Res 1975;
253(2):16175.
Birt AR, Hogg GR, Dube WJ. Hereditary multiple
fibrofolliculomas with trichodiscomas and acrochordons. Arch Dermatol 1977;113(12):16747.
van Steensel MA, Verstraeten VL, Frank J, et al.
Novel mutations in the BHD gene and absence of
loss of heterozygosity in fibrofolliculomas of BirtHogg-Dube patients. J Invest Dermatol 2007;
127(3):58893.
Schulz T, Ebschner U, Hartschuh W. Localized BirtHogg-Dube syndrome with prominent perivascular
fibromas. Am J Dermatopathol 2001;23(2):14953.
Adley BP, Smith ND, Nayar R, et al. Birt-Hogg-Dube
syndrome: clinicopathologic findings and genetic
alterations. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130(12):
186570.
De la Torre C, Ocampo C, Doval IG, et al. Acrochordons are not a component of the Birt-Hogg-Dube
syndrome: does this syndrome exist? Case reports
and review of the literature. Am J Dermatopathol
1999;21(4):36974.
Nickerson ML, Warren MB, Toro JR, et al. Mutations
in a novel gene lead to kidney tumors, lung wall
defects, and benign tumors of the hair follicle in
patients with the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Cancer
Cell 2002;2(2):15764.
Pavlovich CP, Grubb RL 3rd, Hurley K, et al. Evaluation and management of renal tumors in the BirtHogg-Dube syndrome. J Urol 2005;173(5):14826.
Toro JR, Pautler SE, Stewart L, et al. Lung cysts,
spontaneous pneumothorax, and genetic associations in 89 families with Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175(10):104453.
Khoo SK, Bradley M, Wong FK, et al. Birt-HoggDube syndrome: mapping of a novel hereditary
neoplasia gene to chromosome 17p12-q11.2. Oncogene 2001;20(37):523942.
Baba M, Hong SB, Sharma N, et al. Folliculin
encoded by the BHD gene interacts with a binding
protein, FNIP1, and AMPK, and is involved in
AMPK and mTOR signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A 2006;103(42):155527.
Warren MB, Torres-Cabala CA, Turner ML, et al. Expression of Birt-Hogg-Dube gene mRNA in normal
and neoplastic human tissues. Mod Pathol 2004;
17(8):9981011.
Vincent A, Farley M, Chan E, et al. Birt-Hogg-Dube
syndrome: a review of the literature and the differential diagnosis of firm facial papules. J Am Acad
Dermatol 2003;49(4):698705.
Zbar B, Alvord WG, Glenn G, et al. Risk of renal and
colonic neoplasms and spontaneous pneumothorax
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
in the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Cancer Epidemiol

Biomarkers Prev 2002;11(4):393400.
Toro JR, Wei MH, Glenn G, et al. BHD mutations,
clinical and molecular genetic investigations of
Birt-Hogg-Dube Syndrome: a new series of 50 families and a review of published reports. J Med Genet
2008;45(6):32131.
Pavlovich CP, Walther MM, Eyler RA, et al. Renal
tumors in the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Am
J Surg Pathol 2002;26(12):154252.
Khoo SK, Giraud S, Kahnoski K, et al. Clinical and
genetic studies of Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome.
J Med Genet 2002;39(12):90612.
Leter EM, Koopmans AK, Gille JJ, et al. Birt-HoggDube syndrome: clinical and genetic studies of 20
families. J Invest Dermatol 2008;128(1):459.
Kiuru M, Launonen V. Hereditary leiomyomatosis
and renal cell cancer (HLRCC). Curr Mol Med
2004;4(8):86975.
Merino MJ, Torres-Cabala C, Pinto P, et al. The
morphologic spectrum of kidney tumors in hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma
(HLRCC) syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;
31(10):157885.
Alam NA, Bevan S, Churchman M, et al. Localization
of a gene (MCUL1) for multiple cutaneous leiomyomata and uterine fibroids to chromosome 1q42.3q43. Am J Hum Genet 2001;68(5):12649.
Alam NA, Olpin S, Rowan A, et al. Missense mutations in fumarate hydratase in multiple cutaneous
and uterine leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer.
J Mol Diagn 2005;7(4):43743.
Tomlinson IP, Alam NA, Rowan AJ, et al. Germline
mutations in FH predispose to dominantly inherited
uterine fibroids, skin leiomyomata and papillary
renal cell cancer. Nat Genet 2002;30(4):40610.
Barker KT, Spendlove HE, Banu NS, et al. No evidence for epigenetic inactivation of fumarate hydratase in leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas. Cancer
Lett 2006;235(1):13640.
Hodge JC, Morton CC. Genetic heterogeneity
among uterine leiomyomata: insights into malignant
progression. Hum Mol Genet 2007;16(Spec No 1):
R713.
Pollard PJ, Briere JJ, Alam NA, et al. Accumulation
of Krebs cycle intermediates and over-expression
of HIF1alpha in tumours which result from germline
FH and SDH mutations. Hum Mol Genet 2005;
14(15):22319.
Pollard PJ, Spencer-Dene B, Shukla D, et al.
Targeted inactivation of fh1 causes proliferative
renal cyst development and activation of the hypoxia
pathway. Cancer Cell 2007;11(4):3119.
Lehtonen HJ, Blanco I, Piulats JM, et al.
Conventional renal cancer in a patient with
fumarate hydratase mutation. Hum Pathol 2007;
38(5):7936.
571
572
Coleman
63. Sudarshan S, Linehan WM, Neckers L. HIF and
fumarate hydratase in renal cancer. Br J Cancer
2007;96(3):4037.
64. Toro JR, Nickerson ML, Wei MH, et al. Mutations in
the fumarate hydratase gene cause hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer in families in North
America. Am J Hum Genet 2003;73(1):95106.
65. Launonen V, Vierimaa O, Kiuru M, et al. Inherited
susceptibility to uterine leiomyomas and renal cell
cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98(6):
338792.
66. Refae MA, Wong N, Patenaude F, et al. Hereditary
leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer: an unusual
and aggressive form of hereditary renal carcinoma.
Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007;4(4):25661.
67. Grubb RL 3rd, Franks ME, Toro J, et al. Hereditary
leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer: a syndrome
associated with an aggressive form of inherited
renal
cancer.
J
Urol
2007;177(6):20749
[discussion: 207980].
68. Sudarshan S, Pinto PA, Neckers L, et al. Mechanisms of disease: hereditary leiomyomatosis and
renal cell cancera distinct form of hereditary
kidney cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2007;4(2):10410.
69. Al-Saleem T, Wessner LL, Scheithauer BW, et al.
Malignant tumors of the kidney, brain, and soft
tissues in children and young adults with the tuberous sclerosis complex. Cancer 1998;83(10):
220816.
70. Nellist M, Sancak O, Goedbloed M, et al. Functional

characterisation of the TSC1-TSC2 complex to assess multiple TSC2 variants identified in single families affected by tuberous sclerosis complex. BMC
Med Genet 2008;9(1):10.
71. Harris RM, Carter NP, Griffiths B, et al. Physical
mapping within the tuberous sclerosis linkage group
in region 9q32-q34. Genomics 1993;15(2):26574.
72. Povey S, Burley MW, Attwood J, et al. Two loci for
tuberous sclerosis: one on 9q34 and one on
16p13. Ann Hum Genet 1994;58(Pt 2):10727.
73. Janssen B, Sampson J, van der Est M, et al. Refined
localization of TSC1 by combined analysis of 9q34
and 16p13 data in 14 tuberous sclerosis families.
Hum Genet 1994;94(4):43740.
74. Au KS, Williams AT, Roach ES, et al. Genotype/
phenotype correlation in 325 individuals referred
for a diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis complex in
the United States. Genet Med 2007;9(2):88100.
75. Sancak O, Nellist M, Goedbloed M, et al. Mutational
analysis of the TSC1 and TSC2 genes in a diagnostic
setting: genotypephenotype correlations and comparison of diagnostic DNA techniques in tuberous
sclerosis complex. Eur J Hum Genet 2005;13(6):
73141.
76. Rakowski SK, Winterkorn EB, Paul E, et al. Renal
manifestations of tuberous sclerosis complex:
incidence, prognosis, and predictive factors. Kidney
Int 2006;70(10):177782.
Molecular Biology
of Renal Cor tical Tumors
Tobias Klatte, MD, Allan J. Pantuck, MD*
KEYWORDS
HIF VEGF Raf mTOR Therapy VHL
consideration to how an understanding of these

key molecular receptors and ligands has permitted
the rational and evidence-based development of
pharmaceutic agents capable of specifically
targeting key steps in these pathways.
HEREDITARY KIDNEY CANCER

Hereditary kidney cancer accounts for approximately 3% to 5% of RCC cases. Four welldescribed forms are distinguished, including
VHL, hereditary papillary RCC (HPRCC), hereditary leiomyomatosis RCC (HLRCC), and BirtHogg-Dube (BHD). These hereditary RCC forms
are associated with specific, characteristic histologic subtypes. Principally, mutations can be
loss-of-function mutations in tumor suppressor
genes and gain-of-function-mutations in protooncogenes, which are then called oncogenes.
Research regarding hereditary clear cell RCC
has led to the identification of a relevant gene locus
on the short arm of chromosome 3.46 This loss-offunction-mutation led to the assumption of the
existence of a tumor suppressor gene, and subsequently, further research led to the identification of
the VHL gene.7 VHL is an hereditary cancer syndrome in which affected individuals have a high
risk for the development of tumors in multiple
organs, including cerebellar and spinal hemangioblastomas, retinal angiomas, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, pheochromocytoma,
and
bilateral, multifocal clear cell RCC.8 Loss of VHL
also occurs in about 50% of the sporadic clear
cell RCCs.9 VHL loss is strongly linked with activation of the hypoxia-induced pathway, which is
discussed further later.
Department of Urology, Room B7-298 CHS, Box 951738, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of CaliforniaLos Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1738, USA
E-mail address: apantuck@mednet.ucla.edu (A.J. Pantuck).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 573580
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.006
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for approximately 3% of all adult malignancies. The incidence
of RCC has been steadily increasing; in 2008, over
50,000 Americans will be newly diagnosed with
RCC and over 12,000 will die of the disease.1
The clinical management of RCC is rapidly evolving along with our understanding of the disease
process. Historically, RCC was regarded as
a single entity. Today, RCC is more accurately recognized as a family of cancers that results from
distinct genetic abnormalities that have unique
morphologic features but is uniformly derived
from renal tubular epithelium. The current World
Health Organization classification distinguishes
clear cell, papillary, chromophobe, collecting
duct, medullary, and unclassified RCC and other
rare entities.2 Advances in genetics and molecular
biology have provided insight into the genetic
alterations underlying the various renal cortical
tumor types and the subsequent downstream
molecular pathways involved in their tumorigenesis. These recognized differences reflect a greater
sophistication in tumor analysis based on cytology, histology, genetic aberrations, glycogen
content, electron microscopy of cytoplasmic
microvesicles, and immunohistochemistry of intermediate filament proteins. For example, the
discovery of the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumor
suppressor gene and the hypoxia-induced pathway in clear cell RCC has provided a valuable
substrate for application of new strategies for
diagnosis, patient selection, and targeted therapy.3 This article briefly reviews the major genetic
alterations underlying our current understanding of
renal cortical tumors, addresses the crucial biologic pathways that become altered in the various
RCC subtypes (Fig. 1), and gives some
574
Klatte & Pantuck
Fig.1. Crucial pathways involved in RCC biology and tumorigenesis (see further explanation in the text). CAIX/XII,
carbonic anhydrase IX/XII; CXCR4, the chemokine receptor fusin; 4E-BP, eukaryotic initiation factor 4E binding
protein; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; eIF-4E, eukaryotic initiation factor 4E; HIF-1a, hypoxia-inducible
factor 1a; GLUT-1, glucose transporter 1; IGF, insulin-like growth factor; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase;
mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; PDGF, platelet-derived growth factor; PI3K, phosphatidylinositol
3-kinase; PTEN, phosphatase and tensin homolog; TGF, transforming growth factor; VEGF, vascular endothelial
growth factor.
Two hereditary forms of papillary RCC are

distinguished: HPRCC and HLRCC.8 The incidence of these hereditary forms of papillary RCC
is low, and almost all cases seen by urologists
are sporadic tumors.10 HPRCC is a rare autosomal
dominant syndrome associated with type 1 papillary RCC, which is caused by a gain-of-function
mutation of the MET proto-oncogene on chromosome 7q, which encodes a transmembrane receptor (c-Met) that interacts with hepatocyte growth
factor (HGF).11,12 An early- and a late-onset phenotype of HPRCC have been described.13,14
Mutations in the MET proto-oncogene are also
observed in a small proportion of patients who
have sporadic papillary RCC. HLRCC is caused
by a mutation of the fumarate hydratase gene,
leading to cutaneous and uterine leiomyomas
(50% of the affected women have had a hysterectomy by age 30 years) and an aggressive type 2
papillary RCC.8 About 50% of the affected
patients present with nodal or distant metastases.15 Accumulation of fumarate leads to activation of the hypoxia-induced pathway, because
fumarate is a very potent competitive inhibitor of

hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase.8
Thus, increased expression of HIF-1, HIF-2, and
glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) have been
observed in HLRCC.16
The BHD syndrome is a genodermatosis characterized by cutaneous fibrofolliculomas, pulmonary cysts, spontaneous pneumothoraces, and
an increased risk for multiple or bilateral
RCCs.17,18 BHD-associated histologic subtypes
comprise chromophobe RCC (33%), hybrid chromophobe-oncocytic RCC (50%), clear cell RCC
(9%), and oncocytoma (5%). The BHD gene is
located on the short arm of chromosome 17 and
has the characteristics of a tumor suppressor
gene. Mutation or loss of the somatic allele of the
BHD gene was detected in approximately 70%
of BHD-associated renal tumors.19
HYPOXIA-INDUCED PATHWAY
The hypoxia-inducible pathway plays a key role in
regulation of angiogenesis, glucose transport,
Molecular Biology of Kidney Cancer

glycolysis, pH control, epithelial proliferation, cell
migration, and apoptosis of RCC, and is responsible for the ability of cancers to adapt to a
hypoxic microenvironment. HIF-1 mediates responses to changes in tissue oxygenation by
serving as a transcription factor.20,21 HIF-1 was
identified and purified as a nuclear factor that
was induced in hypoxic cells and bound to hypoxia response element (HRE) of the erythropoietin gene.22,23 HIF-1 is a heterodimer and
consists of a constitutively expressed HIF-1b
subunit and a HIF-1a subunit, the latter of which
is controlled at the biosynthetic and posttranslational levels. The helix-loop-helix and the PERARNT-SIM (PAS) domains mediate heterodimer
formation between the two subunits. In addition,
HIF-2a can dimerize with HIF-1b and mediate
HRE-dependent transcriptional activity.2428 In
clear cell RCC, it has been suggested that
HIF-2a activation may favor tumor proliferation
and growth. A progressive switch to a HIF-2a
response may occur during carcinogenesis.29
This switch may be due to an antisense transcript of HIF-1a, which has been reported to
be highly expressed in clear cell RCC.30 A third
member of the HIF-a subunit family, HIF-3a/inhibitory PAS protein, appears to function as
an inhibitor and to negatively regulate
transcriptional responses to hypoxia.31
HIF-1a expression increases with decreasing
oxygen concentration, whereas HIF-1b is constitutively expressed.32 Under normoxic conditions,
tumor cells continuously synthesize, ubiquitinate,
and degrade HIF-1a protein.3335 In addition,
HIF-1a expression is controlled at the posttranslational level by hypoxia through the VHL protein.34
The first 154 residues of VHL comprise the
b domain, which interacts with HIF-1a or HIF-2a.
Residues 155 to 213 of VHL comprise the
a domain, which interacts with elongin C. An E3
ubiquitinprotein ligase complex consisting of
VHL, elongin C, elongin B, CUL2, and RBX1 targets HIF-1a for ubiquitination and proteasomal
degradation.36 Under normoxic conditions, the interaction of VHL with HIF-1a or HIF-2a depends on
the hydroxylation of the HIF-a subunit at two proline residues (Pro402, Pro564) by prolyl hydroxylases that utilize oxygen as a substrate.37 Under
hypoxic conditions, the unhydroxylated form of
HIF-1a does not bind to VHL; therefore, it is not
degraded by the ubiquitin-proteasome. Instead,
it migrates into the nucleus, dimerizes with HIF1b, and binds to HREs within hypoxia-inducible
genes and activates their transcription. Another
hypoxia-sensing region of HIF-1a is called the carboxy-terminal transactivation domain (CTAD).
CTAD binds transcriptional coactivators p300
and CREB-binding protein (CBP) and activates

transcription of genes under hypoxic conditions.38
Hydroxylation of an asparaginyl residue in CTAD
by factor-inhibiting HIF-1 during normoxic
conditions down-regulates the function of the
HIF-a transactivation domain by preventing
recruitment of p300 and CBP.21,39 In addition to
hypoxia, inactivation of the VHL tumor suppressor
gene leads to defective ubiquitination of HIF and
subsequently to accumulation of HIF-1a, even in
the absence of hypoxia.34,36 VHL mutation or
gene loss occurs in about 50% to 60% of sporadic
clear cell RCC, suggesting a major impact of the
VHL-HIF
axis
in
clear
cell
RCC
tumorigenesis.9,36,40
HIF-a dysregulation results in transcriptional
activation of downstream hypoxia-inducible
genes, which encode for growth and angiogenic
factors such as vascular endothelial growth
factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor
(PDGF), transforming growth factor a, and erythropoietin.41 Genes encoding for enzymes that
are involved in glucose uptake and metabolism
(such as GLUT-1) and pH regulation (such as
carbonic anhydrase IX [CAIX]) and matrix metalloproteinases are also activated by HIF-1 dysregulation. In addition, loss of VHL leads to
(1) HIF-1dependent inhibition of the CDH1
gene, which encodes E-cadherin, responsible
for epithelial cellcell adhesion and maintenance
of tissue architecture,42,43 and (2) activation of
the MET proto-oncogene,44 which encodes
HGF receptor. In addition, loss of VHL leads to
up-regulation of the chemokine receptor
CXCR4 (also known as fusin), which plays
a role in metastatic spread.45
Stimuli other than hypoxia and VHL loss can also
induce HIF-1 activation and, subsequently,
transcription of hypoxia-inducible genes. For
example, signaling by way of the HER2/neu or
type I insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) receptor
tyrosine kinase induces HIF-1 expression by an
oxygen-independent mechanism.4648 IGF-I
induced HIF-1a synthesis depends on the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)49 and the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways, further
described in the following paragraphs.47 Other
growth factors, such as epidermal growth factor
(EGF) and a dysfunctional phosphatase and tensin
homolog deleted on chromosome 10 (PTEN)
tumor suppressor gene, also increase HIF-1a
expression through this signal transduction pathway.49 In addition to growth factors, prostaglandin
E2, thrombin, angiotensin II, 5-hydroxytryptamine,
acetylcholine, and some nitric oxide donors can
induce HIF-1 activation under normoxic
conditions.5053
575
576
Klatte & Pantuck

MAMMALIAN TARGET OF RAPAMYCIN PATHWAY
(PHOSPHATIDYLINOSITOL 3-KINASE/PROTEIN
KINASE B PATHWAY)
The mTOR pathway has a central role in the
regulation of cell growth, and increasing evidence
suggests its dysregulation in cancer.54 Receiving
input from multiple signals, the pathway stimulates
protein synthesis by phosphorylating key translational regulators such as S6 kinase. The mTOR
pathway also contributes to many other critical
cellular functions, including protein degradation
and angiogenesis.
Signaling through the mTOR pathway begins
with activation of membrane-bound receptor tyrosine kinases by circulating growth factor ligands.
Their activation leads to autophosphorylation of
tyrosine residues in the receptor and transphosphorylation of adaptor proteins. Activation of
phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) subsequently
occurs on binding of the src homology (SH2)
domains to specific phosphotyrosine residues on
the activated receptor or associated adaptor proteins. This causes the translocation of the enzyme
to the membrane and results in activation of the
p110 catalytic unit.55,56 Subsequently, activated
PI3K phosphorylates phosphatidylinositol-4phosphate to phosphatidylinositol-3,4-biphosphate and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-biphosphate
(PIP2) to phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-triphosphate
(PIP3).
Subsequent signaling from PI3K is mainly mediated through the recruitment of serine/threonine
kinases Akt and PDK1.57 Akt is relocated from
the cytoplasm to the inner surface of the plasma
membrane. On binding to PIP3, Akt undergoes
conformation changes that allow the phosphorylation by PDK1 at Thr308 in the activation loop. Subsequent phosphorylation at Ser473 results in full
Akt activation,58 which translocates to the cytosol
and nucleus where it phosphorylates its substrates. Akt promotes cell survival by inhibiting
the proapoptotic activity of BAD and caspase-9
and by activating several antiapoptotic proteins
such as IkB kinase and cyclic AMP response element binding protein.59,60 Inhibition of glycogen
synthase kinase-3, p21Cip1, and p27Kip1, and
decreased proteolytic degradation of cyclin D1
promote cell cycle progression through the G1/S
phase.61,62
mTOR is a downstream target of Akt that plays
a critical role in the cell cycle progression from
the G1 to the S phase. Activation of mTOR by
Akt occurs through inactivation of the tuberous
sclerosis complex (TSC). Unphosphorylated
TSC2 (tuberin) is bound to TSC1 (hamartin) in
a complex that blocks mTOR activation. This
complex is disrupted when TSC2 is phosphorylated by Akt, relieving the Rheb GAP activity of
TSC2 and allowing Rheb to bind ATP. In the presence of ATP, Rheb switches GDP to GTP and subsequently activates mTOR.63 The major
downstream targets of mTOR are the translational
components ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1) and eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E)-binding
protein 1 (4E-BP1). Activation of S6K1 enhances
the translation of mRNAs containing the 50-terminal oligopyrimidine tract, whereas phosphorylation
of 4E-BP allows the release of eIF4E that facilitates
mRNA binding to the 40S ribosomal subunit.64
Thus, mTOR stimulates the translation of proteins
required for the cell cycle progression from the G1
to the S phase.
PI3K signaling is terminated by degradation of
PIP3, which can be mediated by two different
phosphatases. SH2-containing inositol phosphatase dephosphorylates PIP3 at position D5 and
thereby produces phosphatidylinositol-3,4-biphosphat,65 whereas PTEN removes the
phosphate group at position D3, thereby converting PIP3 back to PIP2.66 PTEN function is
frequently impaired due to deletions or mutations,
resulting in constitutive activation of Akt and upregulation of the mTOR pathway.
RAS/RAF/MEK /EXTRACELLULAR
SIGNAL-REGULATED KINASE PATHWAY
The Ras/Raf/MEK/extracellular signal-regulated
kinase (ERK) signaling pathway is an important
mediator of tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis. It plays a central role in regulating cell growth
by transmitting signals from tyrosine kinase receptors such as EGF receptor, HER-2, VEGF receptor,
PDGF receptor, and MET to the nucleus. Genes
encoding for proteins involved in this pathway
are frequently mutated in cancers.67 Aberrant signaling and activation of this pathway leads to
increased cell survival, cell cycle progression,
proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis, inhibition of apoptosis, and resistance to radiation and chemotherapy.68
Signaling starts by binding of a ligand to one the
four erbB proteins, the most prominent of which is
the erbB1 (EGF receptor). After binding of the ligands, the receptor becomes phosphorylated on
tyrosine residues, allowing the Ras protein to bind
GTP and to become active. Receptor binding is followed by activation of Raf kinase, which phosphorylates and activates MEK, which phosphorylates
and activates ERK1/2, which phosphorylates
several substrates involved in many cellular responses, including translation and transcription of
important proteins such as S6 kinase.68,69

UBIQUITIN-PROTEASOME PATHWAY
Ubiquitin is a 9-KD protein that can activate
proteins and target them for degradation by way
of the 26S proteasome. Proteasomal degradation
is a critical component of numerous cellular processes, including cell cycle regulation and antigen
presentation.70,71 Aberrations of ubiquitination
have been linked with a wide variety of diseases,
including cancer. Protein ubiquitination is accomplished by coordinated reaction with three
enzymes: E1 (ubiquitin-activating enzyme), E2
(ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme), and the substrate-specific E3 (ubiquitin-ligase). The target
protein has to be labeled with at least four ubiquitin
monomers before it is recognized by the 26S proteasome,72 which is the site for ATP-dependent
degradation7375 and is composed of two major
subunits, 20S and 19S. The 20S subunit is the
core of the 26S proteasome and is made up of
four heptameric protein rings. The 19S regulatory
subunit assembles at each pore of the 20S subunit
to form the 26S proteasome. On translocation into
the proteasome, the target protein is degraded
proteolytically. The 19S and the 20S subunit are
necessary for correct proteolytic activity of the
proteasome.72,76
THERAPEUTIC TARGETS
Unraveling the molecular pathways underlying
RCC has permitted the design and development
of agents specifically targeting these pathways,
a process that is currently revolutionizing the medical management of RCC and making it a paradigm
for the targeted therapy of solid malignancies.
Numerous drugs are now available for the systemic therapy of RCC that interfere with certain
targets of the previously described pathways.
For example, sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor
that was initially described as a Raf kinase inhibitor
but also targets VEGF receptor and PDGF receptor b. Sorafenib has been shown to be effective
in phase II and III trials and is now approved for
the treatment of advanced RCC.77,78 Another multityrosine kinase inhibitor, sunitinib, inhibits VEGF
receptor and PDGF receptor b, and showed a response rate of 31% in patients who had metastatic
RCC, leading to prolongation of progression-free
survival compared with interferon-a.79 The monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab also led
to improvement of progression-free survival.80,81
The mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus (CCI-779)
prolonged overall survival among patients who
had metastatic RCC and poor prognosis.82 Other
inhibitors of mTOR, such as everolimus
(RAD001), are currently being explored in clinical
trials, as are antibodies and receptor tyrosine

kinase inhibitors capable of inhibiting the c-Met
pathway, a strategy that may have particular applicability to type I papillary RCC subtype. Targeting
EGF receptor with erlotinib has been explored in
RCC in combination with bevacizumab but did
not provide additional clinical benefit compared
with bevacizumab alone.83 Targeting CAIX with
an anti-CAIX antibody in 35 patients who had metastatic RCC showed a clinical benefit in 8 patients
(23%), including 3 partial responses and 5 disease
stabilizations.84 Because CAIX is a ubiquitous
transmembrane protein expressed by most clear
cell RCCs, efforts are underway to develop imaging modalities based on CAIX binding. Finally,
episodic reports indicate that the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib may be efficient for systemic
therapy of metastatic RCC.85
SUMMARY
The last 10 years have witnessed a dramatic evolution in our understanding of RCC biology, which
has led to the development of novel medical therapies and revolutionized the approach to RCC
clinical management. This review considers the
genetic basis of RCC and the molecular mechanisms of the hypoxia-induced pathway, the
mTOR pathway, the ERK pathway, and the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. All these molecular pathways are involved in RCC biology, tumorigenesis,
and progression, and serve as the source of new
rational treatment strategies based on the design
of small molecule inhibitors directed against their
targets.
REFERENCES
1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics.
CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58(2):7196.
2. Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Montironi R, et al. 2004
WHO classification of the renal tumors of the adults.
Eur Urol 2006;49(5):798805.
3. Lam JS, Leppert JT, Figlin RA, et al. Role of molecular markers in the diagnosis and therapy of renal cell
carcinoma. Urology 2005;66(5 Suppl):19.
4. Cohen AJ, Li FP, Berg S, et al. Hereditary renal-cell
carcinoma associated with a chromosomal translocation. N Engl J Med 1979;301(11):5925.
5. Kovacs G, Brusa P, deRiese W. Tissue-specific
expression of a constitutional 3;6 translocation: development of multiple bilateral renal-cell carcinomas.
Int J Cancer 1989;43(3):4227.
6. Pathak S, Strong LC, Ferrell RE, et al. Familial renal
cell carcinoma with a 3;11 chromosome translocation limited to tumor cells. Science 1982;217(4563):
93941.
577
578
Klatte & Pantuck

7. Latif F, Tory K, Gnarra J, et al. Identification of the
von Hippel-Lindau disease tumor suppressor gene.
Science 1993;260(5112):131720.
8. Linehan WM, Pinto PA, Srinivasan R, et al. Identification of the genes for kidney cancer: opportunity for
disease-specific targeted therapeutics. Clin Cancer
Res 2007;13(2 Pt 2):671s9s.
9. Patard JJ, Trinh QD, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Low CAIX
expression and absence of VHL gene mutation are
associated with tumor aggressiveness and poor survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
J Urol (Suppl) 2007;77(4):[abstract 216].
10. Mejean A, Hopirtean V, Bazin JP, et al. Prognostic
factors for the survival of patients with papillary renal
cell carcinoma: meaning of histological typing and
multifocality. J Urol 2003;170(3):7647.
11. Fischer J, Palmedo G, von Knobloch R, et al. Duplication and overexpression of the mutant allele of the
MET proto-oncogene in multiple hereditary papillary
renal cell tumours. Oncogene 1998;17(6):7339.
12. Zhuang Z, Park WS, Pack S, et al. Trisomy 7-harbouring non-random duplication of the mutant MET
allele in hereditary papillary renal carcinomas. Nat
Genet 1998;20(1):669.
13. Schmidt L, Junker K, Weirich G, et al. Two North
American families with hereditary papillary renal
carcinoma and identical novel mutations in the
MET proto-oncogene. Cancer Res 1998;58(8):
171922.
14. Schmidt LS, Nickerson ML, Angeloni D, et al. Early
onset hereditary papillary renal carcinoma: germline
missense mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of
the MET proto-oncogene. J Urol 2004;172(4 Pt 1):
125661.
15. Grubb RL III, Franks ME, Toro J, et al. Hereditary
leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer: a syndrome
associated with an aggressive form of inherited
renal cancer. J Urol 2007;177(6):20749.
16. Isaacs JS, Jung YJ, Mole DR, et al. HIF overexpression correlates with biallelic loss of fumarate hydratase in renal cancer: novel role of fumarate in
regulation of HIF stability. Cancer Cell 2005;8(2):
14353.
17. Birt AR, Hogg GR, Dube WJ. Hereditary multiple
fibrofolliculomas with trichodiscomas and acrochordons. Arch Dermatol 1977;113(12):16747.
18. Pavlovich CP, Grubb RL III, Hurley K, et al. Evaluation and management of renal tumors in
the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. J Urol 2005;173(5):
14826.
19. Vocke CD, Yang Y, Pavlovich CP, et al. High frequency of somatic frameshift BHD gene mutations
in Birt-Hogg-Dube-associated renal tumors. J Natl
Cancer Inst 2005;97(12):9315.
20. Ivan M, Kaelin WG Jr. The von Hippel-Lindau tumor
suppressor protein. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2001;
11(1):2734.
21. Lando D, Peet DJ, Whelan DA, et al. Asparagine

hydroxylation of the HIF transactivation domain:
a hypoxic switch. Science 2002;295(5556):85861.
22. Semenza GL, Wang GL. A nuclear factor induced by
hypoxia via de novo protein synthesis binds to the
human erythropoietin gene enhancer at a site
required for transcriptional activation. Mol Cell Biol
1992;12(12):544754.
23. Wang GL, Semenza GL. Purification and characterization of hypoxia-inducible factor 1. J Biol Chem
1995;270(3):12307.
24. Atzpodien J, Kuchler T, Wandert T, et al. Rapid deterioration in quality of life during interleukin-2- and alpha-interferon-based home therapy of renal cell
carcinoma is associated with a good outcome. Br
J Cancer 2003;89(1):504.
25. Ema M, Taya S, Yokotani N, et al. A novel bHLH-PAS
factor with close sequence similarity to hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha regulates the VEGF expression and is potentially involved in lung and
vascular development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1997;94(9):42738.
26. Hogenesch JB, Chan WK, Jackiw VH, et al. Characterization of a subset of the basic-helix-loop-helixPAS superfamily that interacts with components of
the dioxin signaling pathway. J Biol Chem 1997;
272(13):858193.
27. Jiang BH, Rue E, Wang GL, et al. DNA binding, and
transactivation properties of hypoxia-inducible factor 1. J Biol Chem 1996;271(30):177718.
28. Tian H, McKnight SL, Russell DW. Endothelial PAS
domain protein 1 (EPAS1), a transcription factor selectively expressed in endothelial cells. Genes Dev
1997;11(1):7282.
29. Mandriota SJ, Turner KJ, Davies DR, et al. HIF
activation identifies early lesions in VHL kidneys:
evidence for site-specific tumor suppressor function
in the nephron. Cancer Cell 2002;1(5):45968.
30. Thrash-Bingham CA, Tartof KD. aHIF: a natural antisense transcript overexpressed in human renal cancer and during hypoxia. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;
91(2):14351.
31. Makino Y, Kanopka A, Wilson WJ, et al. Inhibitory
PAS domain protein (IPAS) is a hypoxia-inducible
splicing variant of the hypoxia-inducible factor-3alpha locus. J Biol Chem 2002;277(36):324058.
32. Jiang BH, Semenza GL, Bauer C, et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 levels vary exponentially over
a physiologically relevant range of O2 tension. Am
J Physiol 1996;271(4 Pt 1):C11721180.
33. Huang LE, Gu J, Schau M, et al. Regulation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha is mediated by an O2dependent degradation domain via the ubiquitinproteasome pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1998;95(14):798792.
34. Maxwell PH, Wiesener MS, Chang GW, et al. The tumour suppressor protein VHL targets hypoxia-
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
inducible factors for oxygen-dependent proteolysis.

Nature 1999;399(6733):2715.
Salceda S, Caro J. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha
(HIF-1alpha) protein is rapidly degraded by the
ubiquitin-proteasome system under normoxic conditions. Its stabilization by hypoxia depends on redoxinduced changes. J Biol Chem 1997;272(36):
226427.
Ohh M, Park CW, Ivan M, et al. Ubiquitination of hypoxia-inducible factor requires direct binding to the
beta-domain of the von Hippel-Lindau protein. Nat
Cell Biol 2000;2(7):4237.
Schofield CJ, Ratcliffe PJ. Oxygen sensing by HIF
hydroxylases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2004;5(5):
34354.
Ruas JL, Poellinger L, Pereira T. Role of CBP in regulating HIF-1-mediated activation of transcription.
J Cell Sci 2005;118(Pt 2):30111.
Mahon PC, Hirota K, Semenza GL. FIH-1: a novel
protein that interacts with HIF-1alpha and VHL to
mediate repression of HIF-1 transcriptional activity.
Genes Dev 2001;15(20):267586.
Linehan WM, Walther MM, Zbar B. The genetic basis
of cancer of the kidney. J Urol 2003;170(6 Pt 1):
216372.
Pantuck AJ, Zeng G, Belldegrun AS, et al.
Pathobiology, prognosis, and targeted therapy
for renal cell carcinoma: exploiting the hypoxia-induced pathway. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9(13):
464152.
Esteban MA, Tran MG, Harten SK, et al. Regulation
of E-cadherin expression by VHL and hypoxiainducible factor. Cancer Res 2006;66(7):356775.
Krishnamachary B, Zagzag D, Nagasawa H, et al.
Hypoxia-inducible factor-1-dependent repression
of E-cadherin in von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor-null renal cell carcinoma mediated by TCF3,
ZFHX1A, and ZFHX1B. Cancer Res 2006;66(5):
272531.
Pennacchietti S, Michieli P, Galluzzo M, et al.
Hypoxia promotes invasive growth by transcriptional
activation of the MET protooncogene. Cancer Cell
2003;3(4):34761.
Staller P, Sulitkova J, Lisztwan J, et al. Chemokine
receptor CXCR4 downregulated by von HippelLindau tumour suppressor pVHL. Nature 2003;
425(6955):30711.
Feldser D, Agani F, Iyer NV, et al. Reciprocal positive
regulation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha and insulin-like growth factor 2. Cancer Res 1999;59(16):
39158.
Fukuda R, Hirota K, Fan F, et al. Insulin-like growth
factor 1 induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1-mediated vascular endothelial growth factor expression,
which is dependent on MAP kinase and
phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase signaling in colon cancer cells. J Biol Chem 2002;277(41):3820511.
48. Laughner E, Taghavi P, Chiles K, et al. HER2 (neu)

signaling increases the rate of hypoxia-inducible
factor 1alpha (HIF-1alpha) synthesis: novel mechanism for HIF-1-mediated vascular endothelial growth
factor expression. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21(12):
39954004.
49. Zhong H, Chiles K, Feldser D, et al. Modulation of
hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha expression by the
epidermal growth factor/phosphatidylinositol 3kinase/PTEN/AKT/FRAP pathway in human prostate
cancer cells: implications for tumor angiogenesis
and therapeutics. Cancer Res 2000;60(6):15415.
50. Hirota K, Fukuda R, Takabuchi S, et al. Induction of
hypoxia-inducible factor 1 activity by muscarinic
acetylcholine receptor signaling. J Biol Chem
2004;279(40):415218.
51. Kasuno K, Takabuchi S, Fukuda K, et al. Nitric oxide
induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 activation that is
dependent on MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase signaling. J Biol Chem 2004;279(4):25508.
52. Page EL, Robitaille GA, Pouyssegur J, et al. Induction of hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha by transcriptional and translational mechanisms. J Biol Chem
2002;277(50):484039.
53. Richard DE, Berra E, Pouyssegur J. Nonhypoxic
pathway mediates the induction of hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha in vascular smooth muscle cells.
J Biol Chem 2000;275(35):2676571.
54. Sarbassov DD, Ali SM, Sabatini DM. Growing roles
for the mTOR pathway. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2005;
17(6):596603.
55. Cantley LC. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase pathway.
Science 2002;296(5573):16557.
56. Luo J, Manning BD, Cantley LC. Targeting the PI3KAkt pathway in human cancer: rationale and promise. Cancer Cell 2003;4(4):25762.
57. Fresno Vara JA, Casado E, de CJ, et al. PI3K/Akt
signalling pathway and cancer. Cancer Treat Rev
2004;30(2):193204.
58. Nicholson KM, Anderson NG. The protein kinase
B/Akt signalling pathway in human malignancy.
Cell Signal 2002;14(5):38195.
59. Datta SR, Brunet A, Greenberg ME. Cellular survival:
a play in three Akts. Genes Dev 1999;13(22):
290527.
60. Downward J. PI 3-kinase, Akt and cell survival.
Semin Cell Dev Biol 2004;15(2):17782.
61. Chang F, Lee JT, Navolanic PM, et al. Involvement of
PI3K/Akt pathway in cell cycle progression, apoptosis, and neoplastic transformation: a target for cancer chemotherapy. Leukemia 2003;17(3):590603.
62. Liang J, Slingerland JM. Multiple roles of the
PI3K/PKB (Akt) pathway in cell cycle progression.
Cell Cycle 2003;2(4):33945.
63. Manning BD, Cantley LC. United at last: the tuberous sclerosis complex gene products connect the
phosphoinositide
3-kinase/Akt
pathway
to
579
Klatte & Pantuck
580
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signalling.

Biochem Soc Trans 2003;31(Pt 3):5738.
Hay N, Sonenberg N. Upstream and downstream of
mTOR. Genes Dev 2004;18(16):192645.
Damen JE, Liu L, Rosten P, et al. The 145-kDa
protein induced to associate with Shc by multiple
cytokines is an inositol tetraphosphate and phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-triphosphate 5-phosphatase.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93(4):168993.
Cantley LC, Neel BG. New insights into tumor suppression: PTEN suppresses tumor formation by
restraining the phosphoinositide 3-kinase/AKT pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96(8):42405.
Eisenmann KM, VanBrocklin MW, Staffend NA, et al.
Mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway-dependent tumor-specific survival signaling in melanoma
cells through inactivation of the proapoptotic protein
Bad. Cancer Res 2003;63(23):83307.
Sridhar SS, Hedley D, Siu LL. Raf kinase as a target
for anticancer therapeutics. Mol Cancer Ther 2005;
4(4):67785.
Kohno M, Pouyssegur J. Pharmacological inhibitors
of the ERK signaling pathway: application as anticancer drugs. Prog Cell Cycle Res 2003;5:21924.
Koepp DM, Harper JW, Elledge SJ. How the cyclin
became a cyclin: regulated proteolysis in the cell cycle. Cell 1999;97(4):4314.
Rock KL, Goldberg AL. Degradation of cell proteins
and the generation of MHC class I-presented peptides. Annu Rev Immunol 1999;17:73979.
Thrower JS, Hoffman L, Rechsteiner M, et al. Recognition of the polyubiquitin proteolytic signal. EMBO J
2000;19(1):94102.
Arrigo AP, Tanaka K, Goldberg AL, et al. Identity of
the 19S prosome particle with the large multifunctional protease complex of mammalian cells (the
proteasome). Nature 1988;331(6152):1924.
Hough R, Pratt G, Rechsteiner M. Ubiquitin-lysozyme conjugates. Identification and characterization
of an ATP-dependent protease from rabbit reticulocyte lysates. J Biol Chem 1986;261(5):24008.
75. Voges D, Zwickl P, Baumeister W. The 26S proteasome: a molecular machine designed for controlled
proteolysis. Annu Rev Biochem 1999;68:101568.
76. Glickman MH, Rubin DM, Coux O, et al. A subcomplex
of the proteasome regulatory particle required for ubiquitin-conjugate degradation and related to the COP9signalosome and eIF3. Cell 1998;94(5):61523.
77. Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib in
advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J
Med 2007;356(2):12534.
78. Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of
sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(16):250512.
versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356(2):11524.
80. Escudier B, Pluzanska A, Koralewski P, et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, doubleblind phase III trial. Lancet 2007;370(9605):210311.
81. Yang JC, Haworth L, Sherry RM, et al. A randomized
trial of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial
growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal cancer.
N Engl J Med 2003;349(5):42734.
82. Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, et al. Temsirolimus,
interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356(22):227181.
83. Bukowski RM, Kabbinavar FF, Figlin RA, et al. Randomized phase II study of erlotinib combined with
bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone
in metastatic renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;
25(29):453641.
84. Bleumer I, Oosterwijk E, Oosterwijk-Wakka JC, et al.
A clinical trial with chimeric monoclonal antibody
WX-G250 and low dose interleukin-2 pulsing
scheme for advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Urol
2006;175(1):5762.
85. Ronnen EA, Kondagunta GV, Motzer RJ. Medullary
renal cell carcinoma and response to therapy with
bortezomib. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(9):e14.
Epidemiology, Clinical
Staging, and
Presentation of Renal
Cell Carcinoma
G. Joel DeCastro, MD, MPH*, James M. McKiernan, MD
KEYWORDS
Renal cell carcinoma Epidemiology
Hollingsworth and colleagues3 found that the rise

in incidence of RCC between 1983 and 2002
(7.1 to 10.8 per 100,000) was mostly a result of
tumors 4 cm or smaller in diameter.
CHANGES IN STAGE AT PRESENTATION

Incidentally detected RCC tends to be lower stage
and more likely to be localized than symptomatic
lesions at diagnosis.8,12 Luciani and colleagues8
examined over 1,000 consecutive patients who
presented with RCC at a single institution between
1982 and 1997. Consistent with other studies, the
proportion of tumors detected incidentally rose
rapidly during this period (from 13% to 59%). At
the same time, the proportion of clinical stage
T1-T2 tumors increased from 49% to 74%, while
the percentage of patients with M1 disease decreased from 20% to 10%. Similar patterns have
been noted for pathologic stage. At Memorial
Sloan Kettering, the proportion of renal tumors
that were stage pT1 in 1989 was 4%, versus
22% in 2000.13 However, since the hospital-based
patient samples in these studies are composed
mainly of patients who are at least being considered for surgery, they are likely to be biased
toward those with lower stage, and thus resectable, disease.11 Interpretation of this data as
evidence of a downward stage migration of RCC
may therefore be inaccurate.
Whereas small, localized renal masses are responsible for most incident cases today, the incidence of all stages of RCC, including advanced
Department of Urology, Columbia University/New York Presbyterian Hospital, Atchley Pavillion, 11th floor,
161 Fort Washington Avenue, New York, NY 10032, USA
E-mail address: gjd16@columbia.edu (G.J. DeCastro).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 581592
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.005
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 3% of all

cancer diagnoses in the United States.1 In 2007
there were approximately 51,200 new cases of
RCC, and an estimated 12,900 deaths. When
compared with 1971, these numbers represent
a fivefold increase in new cases and a twofold
increase in mortality.2 In fact, the incidence of
RCC has been steadily increasing since the early
1980s, from approximately 7.1 per 100,000 to
10.9 in 2002.3
The reasons behind this rise are multiple. The primary reason relates to the increased availability
and use of abdominal imaging in the American
health care system during the past 2 decades.4
As a result, more renal masses are being diagnosed
incidentallythat is, in the absence of symptoms
typically associated with RCC.57 In 1970 approximately 10% of RCCs were detected incidentally,
compared with more than 60% in 1998.811
This shift in clinical presentation has had an
important effect on the number of renal cancers
detected as well as on the characteristics of the
newly diagnosed lesions. The features of incidentally detected tumors tend to differ from symptomatic lesions in several respects. Incidentally
detected renal masses tend to be smaller than
their symptomatic counterparts.7,12 Accordingly,
the average size of diagnosed RCC masses has
decreased significantly over the past 2 decades.
In a review of the Memorial Sloan Kettering experience, Lee and colleagues13 described the
mean RCC tumor size at diagnosis in 1989 to be
7.8 cm, decreasing to 5.3 cm in 1998. Similarly,
582
DeCastro & McKiernan

and metastatic disease, is on the rise. Hock and
colleagues14 compared incidence rates of RCC
between 1973 to 1985 and 1986 to 1998 using
the SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End
Results) cancer registry. They found that localized
disease rose by an annual 3.7% (95% CI 3.24.2),
regional disease by 1.9% (95% CI 1.22.6), and
distant metastatic disease by 0.68 (95% CI
0.11.3). Similarly findings have been echoed by
other authors.4
CHANGES IN DEMOGRAPHICS
In addition to changes in disease characteristics at
presentation, significant changes have been noted
in the demographics of RCC. There continues to
be a strong gender preponderance, with men
accounting for two-thirds of RCC diagnoses and
deaths.15,16 Luciani and colleagues8 found that
the mean age of patients presenting with RCC
has increased from a mean of 57 years in 1982
to 63 years in 1997. When restricted to incidentally
detected tumors only, they found that mean age at
detection increased to 64 years. More recently, the
SEER cancer registry reported that median age at
diagnosis between 2000 and 2004 was 65 years.17
The causes for this shift in age at diagnosis are
unclear. It may in part be the result of increased
exposure to the health care system owing to
a greater number of comorbidities as a patient
ages.8
Race has also emerged as an important factor in
the epidemiology of RCC. Using the SEER cancer
registry, Vaishampayan and colleagues18 found
that between 1975 and 1998, incidence rates
among blacks increased by 4.5% compared with
2.9% in whites. Similarly, Chow and colleagues4
estimated the RCC incidence among white men
between 1975 and 1995 to be 2.3%, compared
with 3.9% in black men. During the same period
white women had a 3.1% annual increase, while
the rate in black women increased by 4.9% per
year.
The reason why blacks have had a higher
incidence rate of RCC during the past 2 decades
is uncertain. There is no evidence that RCC in
this population is being disproportionately
detected via increased use of abdominal imaging.
The underlying reason for this disparity is therefore
likely to involve changes in the affected population
itself.18 For example, it is possible that there is
increased exposure within this population to risk
factors associated with RCC. As described in
more detail later in this article, established risk
factors for RCC such as obesity and hypertension
affect the black population disproportionately.
Racial disparities have also been observed in

mortality rates from RCC. The study by
Vaishampayan and colleagues18 found that
between 1975 and 1998, the median diseasespecific survival for all stages of RCC for blacks
was 47 months, compared with 53 months for
whites. When limited to those patients 60 years
of age and younger with localized disease, the disparity in median survival rates between the two
groups increased: 190 and 259 months, respectively (P < .01). In other words, the survival difference between black and white patients seems to
be amplified in younger cohorts with less severe
disease. Similar findings have been cited by other
authors.19
Again, reasons for this difference are unclear.
Racial disparities in cancer rates and outcomes
exist for multiple solid organ neoplasms, including prostate and bladder cancer. However, while
the poorer outcomes in bladder cancer can be in
part explained by more advanced stage at presentation, racial disparities in survival for RCC
are greatest among younger patients with
localized disease.18,20 Delayed presentation is
therefore not a sufficient explanation for this phenomenon, and requires further study. With the
exception of renal medullary carcinoma, predisposition to more malignant histologies in the
black population do not seem to be borne out
in the literature.21
In an analysis of the SEER cancer registry,
Berndt and colleagues22 examined the treatment
patterns between blacks and whites diagnosed
with RCC. They found that after adjusting for
known disease- and patient-specific variables affecting surgical candidacy, blacks were less
likely to undergo nephrectomy than whites (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.90.96). Survival
was significantly worse for blacks, although the
disparity was reduced after controlling for comorbidities. It is therefore possible that the
worse prognosis in blacks diagnosed with RCC
can be partly explained by the increased prevalence of significant comorbidities in this population, as well as by their lower rate of surgical
intervention.
MORTALITY RATES
Excellent 5-year survival rates have been reported
for the small, localized masses that comprise the
majority of newly diagnosed renal tumors today.
Tsui and colleagues found that incidentally
detected tumors were more likely to be smaller,
lower stage, and lower grade than symptomatic
lesions. Accordingly, 5-year disease-free survival
(DFS) rates were 85.3% and 62.5%, respectively.
Presentation of Renal Cell Carcinoma

In their review of 4,000 patients who underwent
nephrectomy between 1984 and 1999, Patard
and colleagues7 found that at 73 months DFS
was 93% for incidentally detected tumors and
59% for symptomatic lesions. Similarly, Pantuck
and colleagues23 found a doubling of 5-year DFS
rates for patients with RCC between the time
periods of 1963 to 1973 and 1982 to 1992. They
postulate that this improvement was mostly the
result of an increasing proportion of smaller, incidentally detected tumors included in the analyses.
While the disease characteristics may have
changed over the past 2 decades, aggressive
treatment remains the standard for incident renal
tumors. Between 1983 and 2002, the incidence
of renal surgery increased from 0.9 to 3.6 per
100,000, mostly for tumors 4 cm or smaller.3
Whether this is an appropriate extension of
aggressive therapy remains to be determined.
In a review of the SEER cancer registry, Chow
and colleagues4 found that despite the increasing proportion of localized, incidentally detected
RCCs, mortality rates continue to rise. This documented rise in mortality is likely to be in part the
result of the concomitant increase in all stages of
RCC, including advanced disease. But if the
increasing incidence of RCC is primarily a result
of smaller, localized tumors, and these are being
addressed with effective surgical treatments,
why have overall mortality rates not decreased?
If these localized masses are being detected
early in their progression before they advance
and cause mortality, why has their treatment
not effected a decrease in advanced disease
and in disease-specific mortality? This treatment disconnect is the subject of much
debate.3,24
As argued by Parsons and colleagues,24 if the
increase in overall incidence of RCC is primarily
a result of the detection of earlier stages of the
disease, we would expect a screening effect
similar to that noted for prostate-specific antigen
and prostate cancer. Namely, over a period of
time, disease-specific mortality should decrease.
However, the incidence of advanced disease continues to rise, as do mortality rates. This therefore
begs the question of what risk these small, incidental masses truly represent, and therefore
what constitutes appropriate therapy.
First, the conclusions about mortality rates that
can be made from improved 5-year DFS statistics
are limited, as this measure may not ultimately
translate into decreased mortality. Using the
SEER cancer registry, Welch and colleagues25
found that the 5-year DFS rates for 20 selected
malignancies all increased between 1950 and
1995. However, eventual mortality decreased for
only 12 of 20 cancers during the same time period,

and increased for the remainder. They concluded
that improvements in 5-year DFS may not translate into eventual decreases in mortality, but may
instead be affected by changes in diagnostic
patterns.25 Part of this explanation stems from
the phenomenon of lead-time bias: in the case of
RCC, smaller tumors being diagnosed and recognized earlier than in the past may give an artificial
increase in survival time without affecting eventual
mortality rates.24,26 However, this presumes that
a large percentage of these asymptomatic, incidentally detected renal masses are destined to
progress. At this time there is insufficient evidence
to suggest that this is true.
The increasing mortality rates and incidence of
advanced stages of RCC represent a challenge
to our current treatment paradigm for small, incidentally detected renal masses. It is possible that
many of these lesions are unlikely to progress to
advanced stages, or to result in mortality. This
possibility, combined with an independently rising
incidence of advanced disease, may provide part
of the explanation as to why overall mortality rates
for RCC are increasing. Examining the biology and
natural course of incidentally detected renal
masses may help in clarifying this dilemma. Therefore, in the absence of prospective clinical trials,
observations taken from retrospective, active
surveillance programs may provide meaningful
insight into this issue.
In 2006, Chawla and colleagues26 performed
a meta-analysis of 234 renal lesions with a mean
diameter of 2.6 cm followed on active surveillance
at 10 institutions. At a mean follow-up of 34
months, the mean growth rate was estimated as
0.28 cm per year. Pathology was available in
46% of the cases, of which 92% (120 of 131)
were confirmed as RCC variants. Within the subgroup of patients with documented RCC, a mean
growth rate of 0.40 cm per year was observed.
Development of metastases was seen in 1%
of lesions (3 of 286) during follow-up. This review
of the available world literature on surveillance of
small solid renal lesions provides valuable insight
into why the detection of these indolent lesions
has not led to a demonstrable decrease in mortality from this disease.
In an analysis of a prospectively collected database of 482 renal masses resected between 2001
and 2005, Schachter and colleagues27 found that
of those lesions 4 cm or smaller in diameter
(n 5 228), 26% were benign, compared with 8%
of lesions larger than 4 cm (n 5 254). Similarly, in
a large-scale study of more than 2,700 nephrectomy specimens, there was an inverse relationship
between tumor size and benign histology: of
583
584

tumors smaller than 1 cm, 46% were benign,
versus 6% of those 7 cm or larger.28 Similar patterns have been reported by other authors.29
These findings suggest that many of the small
masses that comprise the majority of incident
RCCs today are more likely to be benign. However, more research is needed into the natural
course of these cancers before clinical guidelines
can be suggested.
RISK FACTORS
Smoking
There are myriad risk factors that have been linked
to the development of RCC.3032 Smoking,
obesity, and hypertension are the three most
well-established factors associated with RCC. A
recent review by Vineis and colleagues33 revealed
a relative risk of 1.5 to 2.0 for development of RCC
in persons who smoke 20 or more cigarettes daily.
Similarly, a cohort study of more than 350,000
Swedish men found a significantly increased risk
of RCC in individuals with any smoking history.34
More recently, a meta-analysis by Hunt and
colleagues35 in 2005 reviewed 19 case-control
studies and 5 cohort studies (Fig. 1). In their comparison of ever versus never smokers, they
found that the relative risk for RCC in smokers
was 1.39 (95% CI 1.271.5). Among men, the relative risk was 1.54 (1.421.68), and in women 1.22
(1.091.36). There was also a significant dose-dependent effect, with relative risk increasing in
those smoking more than 20 cigarettes per day
compared with fewer than 10. In men, the relative
risk was 2.03 (95% CI 1.512.74) versus 1.6 (95%

CI 1.212.12). In women this dose-effect was less
salient: 1.58 (95% CI 1.142.2) compared with
0.98 (95% CI 0.711.35). The authors explained
this gender-based difference by the maturity of
smoking patterns, that is, men are likely to have
been smoking for a longer period of time than
women.
Smoking cessation significantly decreased the
relative risk of RCC after 10 years compared with
those who had quit less than 10 years ago, but
this difference was noted only in men (RR 1.75,
95% CI 1.412.18 versus 1.21, 95% CI 0.861.7).
Similarly, Parker and colleagues36 found that the
risk of RCC decreased with increasing number of
years after quitting smoking. After controlling for
age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hypertension,
and pack-years of smoking, for those having quit
for 30 years or longer versus fewer than 30 years
there was a 50% decrease in risk of developing
RCC (odds ratio [OR] 5 0.5, 95% CI 0.30.8).
Obesity
Obesity has long been considered an important
risk factor for developing RCC. In the previously
cited study, Chow and colleagues34 divided
patients into three groups based on increasing
BMI. They found that those in the middle group
had a 60% greater risk of developing RCC than
those in the lower group, while the risk in the highest BMI group doubled (P < .01). In a recent largescale study, 2 million Norwegian men and women
were followed for a mean of 23 years between
Fig.1. Forrest plot for estimated RR for ever smokers Q-test for heterogeneity (P 5 .083). (From Hunt JD, van der
Hel OL, McMillan GP, Boffetta P, Brennan P. Renal cell carcinoma in relation to cigarette smoking: meta-analysis of
24 studies. Int J Cancer 2005;114(1):1018; with permission.)

1963 and 2001.37 The calculated relative risk per
unit of BMI for both men and women was 1.05
(95% CI 1.041.06). Compared with men of normal
weight, men with a BMI of 35 to 39 had a relative
risk of 1.89 (95% CI 1.222.94), increasing to
2.76 (95% CI 0.898.56) for a BMI of 40 or greater.
In a more recent review of the literature, Calle and
Kaaks38 noted that compared with individuals with
normal weight, the relative risk of developing RCC
for persons with a BMI of 25 to 30 was 1.5, and 2.5
for those with BMI 30 or greater. The authors calculate that the population-attributable fraction of
being overweight to the development of RCC in
the United States is more than 30%.
The prevalence of obesity in the United States
has increased dramatically over the past
3 decades. In 1980 approximately 15% of American adults were estimated to be obese, as defined
by a BMI of 30 or greater. This estimate has more
than doubled to 33% in 2004.39 This trend must
be considered when discussing the increasing incidence of RCC in the United States that has been
largely attributed to abdominal imaging. As a wellestablished risk factor for RCC, the epidemic of
obesity in the United States may help explain the
rising incidence of all stages of RCC.
Multiple mechanisms of how obesity may be
related to the development of RCC have been proposed. Researchers have pointed to the endocrine
and metabolic role of adipose tissue.38 Consequently, obesity may lead to increased release of
adipokines such as free fatty acids and tumor
necrosis factor-a. Together with the hyperinsulinemia and increased bioavailability of insulin-like
growth factor-1 associated with obesity, these
adipokines may lead to increased cell proliferation,
decreased apoptosis, and tumorigenesis. As proposed by Gago-Dominguez and colleagues,40 lipid
peroxidation of proximal renal tubules may be carcinogenic, and increased lipid bioavailability in
obese individuals may predispose them to RCC.
Hypertension
Multiple studies have demonstrated the association
between hypertension and RCC. Chow and colleagues34 noted a positive trend in RCC risk with increasing diastolic and systolic blood pressure. As
shown in Table 1, compared with individuals with diastolic blood pressures less than 70 mm Hg, those
with values higher than 90 mm Hg had a doubled
risk of developing RCC. Similarly, compared with
patients with a systolic blood pressure of less than
120 mm Hg, those with a value higher than
150 mm Hg had a 60% higher risk of RCC. In this
same study, no association was found between
blood pressure values and the risk of renal pelvis
cancer, which has a distinct histology and clinical

course from RCC.
Grossman and colleagues41 performed a metaanalysis using 13 case-control and longitudinal
studies, each demonstrating an association
between RCC and hypertension. The pooled
adjusted odds ratio for hypertensive patients was
1.75 (95% CI 1.61.9). A large-scale, 20-year
prospective study in Hawaii found a positive association between hypertension and RCC, even after
adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol, and obesity.42
The duration of diagnosed hypertension has also
been found to be correlated with development of
RCC.43
The incidence of hypertension has been
increasing in the United States, with variations
between 3% and 18% per year depending on
age, gender, ethnicity, and body size.44 The highest increases have been observed in blacks. According to the National Health Examination
Survey, the prevalence of hypertension among
this group in 1960 was 42.5%, compared with
28.3% in white men.45 While this disparity diminished between 1960 and 1990, it has again increased since 1999.46 The increase in
hypertension rates in the United States may help
to explain why the incidence of RCC has been rising, especially within the black community.
CLINICAL STAGING
The goal of any staging system is to combine available data about malignant disease to make accurate prognoses, as well as to assist in choosing
appropriate treatment modalities and determine
eligibility of patients for clinical trials. For the past
3 decades the TNM (tumor-node-metastases)
staging system has been widely applied to RCC.
Instituted in 1974 by the International Union
Against Cancer47 and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), the TNM system has since
undergone three major revisions, each time incorporating new data with the goal of improving its
prognostic accuracy.
In 1987, the size cut-off between T1 and T2 was
established as 2.5 cm, but was later demonstrated
to have poor prognostic value.48 In 1997, the size
cut-off for T2 disease was increased to 7 cm,
thereby improving the prognostic utility of the
system (Table 2).49,50
In 2002, the T1 stage was divided into T1a and
T1b substages, separated by a size cut-off of
4 cm.51 This change was largely prompted by the
increasing use of nephron-sparing surgery. Hafez
and colleagues52 examined 485 patients who
underwent partial nephrectomy, and found that
patients with tumors 4 cm or smaller in diameter
585
586
Table 1
Relative risk of RCC and renal-pelvic cancer among men according to smoking status, body mass index,
and blood pressure
Variable
No. Men in
Cohort
(n 5 362,992)
Smoking status
Nonsmoker
148,206
Former smoker
51,638
Current smoker 138,332
Unknown
25,816
Body mass index
%20.75
45,073
20.7521.90
45,131
21.9122.85
45,057
22.8623.80
46,516
23.8124.76
44,916
24.7725.95
45,987
25.9627.75
45,499
R27.76
45,813
P for trend
Diastolic blood pressure

<70 mm Hg
40,407
70 79 mm Hg
110,461
8089 mm Hg
139,998
9099 mm Hg
57,060
100109 mm Hg
11,627
4,439
R110 mm Hg
P for trend
Systolic blood pressure

<120 mm Hg
39,010
120129 mm Hg 100,884
130139 mm Hg 108,165
140149 mm Hg
67,661
150159 mm Hg
27,361
R160 mm Hg
20,911
P for trend
Follow-up
Renal-Cell Cancer
Renal-Pelvis Cancer
Person-Year
No. Men
with Cancer
Relative Risk
(95% CI)
No. Men
with Cancer
Relative Risk
(95% CI)
2,129,536
909,630
2,289,228
455,494
180
145
334
100
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.6
18
19
82
17
1.0 (ref)
1.6 (0.9 3.1)
3.5 (2.1 5.8)
2.6 (1.3 5.0)
705,242
707,289
710,225
741,832
720,615
744,218
735,804
718,663
32
46
43
78
107
102
156
195
1.0 (ref)
1.2 (0.7
0.9 (0.6
1.4 (0.9
1.6 (1.1
1.3 (0.8
1.7 (1.1
1.9 (1.3
<.001
1.8)
1.5)
2.1)
2.4)
1.9)
2.7)
2.7)
15
8
13
13
22
23
22
20
1.0 (ref)
0.4 (0.2
0.6 (0.3
0.5 (0.2
0.8 (0.4
0.7 (0.4
0.6 (0.3
0.5 (0.2
.25
1.0)
1.3)
1.1)
1.5)
1.5)
1.1)
1.0)
540,097
1,695,116
2,317,216
974,597
187,114
69,748
12
96
273
272
78
28
1.0 (ref)
1.4 (0.8
1.7 (0.9
2.1 (1.2
2.3 (1.2
2.2 (1.1
<.001
2.5)
3.0)
3.9)
4.4)
4.5)
6
22
49
46
10
3
1.0 (ref)
0.6 (0.2
0.6 (0.2
0.7 (0.3
0.6 (0.2
0.6 (0.1
.74
1.5)
1.4)
1.8)
1.9)
2.4)
554,138
1,561,807
1,754,399
1,122,128
458,505
332,911
28
103
192
168
124
144
1.0 (ref)
1.1 (0.7
1.5 (1.0
1.4 (0.9
1.6 (1.1
1.7 (1.1
.007
1.7)
2.2)
2.1)
2.4)
2.6)
11
28
29
27
20
21
1.0 (ref)
0.8 (0.4
0.6 (0.3
0.6 (0.3
0.7 (0.3
0.7 (0.3
.91
1.7)
1.2)
1.3)
1.5)
1.5)
(ref)
(1.0 1.6)
(1.3 1.9)
(1.2 2.0)
All models included age, smoking status, body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in
meters), and diastolic blood pressure. CI denotes confidence interval.
Data from Chow WH, Gridley G, Fraumeni JF Jr., Jarvholm B. Obesity, hypertension, and the risk of kidney cancer in men.
N Engl J Med 2000;343(18):130511.
had significantly better 5-year survival than those

with tumors larger patients with than 4 cm. However, given that this study did not directly compare
nephron-sparing to radical surgery, it was not designed to make any conclusions regarding surgical
therapies. In fact, multiple studies have since found
that tumors between 4 and 7 cm in diameter can be
safely treated with partial nephrectomy, as long as
they are anatomically amenable and that negative

margins can be obtained.5355 Therefore, it is likely
that the differences in survival observed in the Hafez
study stemmed from inherent characteristics of
larger masses rather than the choice of surgical
therapy.48
However, the Hafez study did demonstrate a significant difference in survival based on the 4-cm
Table 2
Revisions ofTNM staging for RCC
Extent of Disease
TNM 199749
TNM 200251
T3b
Restricted to kidney, %2.5 cm
Restricted to kidney, >2.5 cm

Invading adrenal gland or perinephric
fat within Gerotas fascia
Extension into renal vein
T3c
Extension into IVC below diaphragm
T4
T4a
Nx
N0
N1
Extension beyond Gerotas fascia

Extension into IVC above diaphragm
Lymph nodes not assessed
No regional lymph node involvement
Single regional lymph node involved,
%2 cm
25 cm
>5 cm
Distant metastases not assessed
No distant metastases
Distant metastases present
Restricted to kidney, %7 cm
Restricted to kidney, >7 cm

Extension into renal vein or IVC below
diaphragm
Extension into the IVC above the
diaphragm

Single regional lymph node involved
Restricted to kidney, %4 cm
Restricted to kidney, 4 cm7 cm
Restricted to kidney, >7 cm
Extension into renal vein or IVC below
diaphragm
Extension into the IVC above the
diaphragm or invasion into its wall

Single regional lymph node involved
>1 regional lymph node involved
>1 regional lymph node involved


T1
T1a
T1b
T2
T3a
N2
N3
Metastases
Mx
M0
M1
IVC, inferior vena cava; RCC, renal cell carcinoma; TNM, tumor-node-metastases.
Nodal Status
TNM 198748
587
588

cut-off, and this was subsequently incorporated
into the TNM system in 2002. A multi-institutional
study of more than 2,200 patients undergoing either radical or partial nephrectomy confirmed a significant difference in 5- and 10-year DFS between
T1a, T1b, and T2 subgroups.56 Other recent studies have also confirmed these findings.56,57
During the past several years, multiple
researchers have attempted to fine-tune the size
cut-off within the T1 substage, as well as between
T1 and T2.5860 Ficarra and colleagues59 found
that using 5.5 cm to distinguish between T1a and
T1b was more prognostically accurate for DFS
than 4 cm. Similarly, a study from the Mayo Clinic
found that a 5-cm cut-off was more predictive of
DFS.58 These marginal differences in proposed
size cut-offs underline the importance of primary
tumor size as well as the fact that size is
a continuous variable that is predictive of survival.
The T2 stage is presently defined as any tumor
greater than 7 cm in diameter with no extension
beyond the kidney. It appears that at least for
clear-cell RCC, tumors greater than 7 cm in
diameter have a preponderance of extra-renal
extension (ie, T3), thereby making the T2 stage
a relative rarity in this subset.61 In a review of
120 patients, Bonsib61 found that 85% of tumors
4 cm or smaller in diameter were limited to the kidney (ie, T1a), and only 32% of those between 4 and
7 cm (ie, T1b). Of tumors larger than 7 cm in diameter, only 3% were localized to the kidney, and
thus staged as T2. Nevertheless, within the T2
stage, there is increasing data indicating that not
all organ-confined tumors larger than 7 cm carry
the same risk.62,63 Frank and colleagues63 examined 544 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy for T2 RCC. With a median follow-up of
almost 4 years, and after adjusting for the presence of regional and distant metastases, they
found that tumors under 10 cm in diameter had
a lower risk disease-specific mortality than larger
lesions. Similarly, an international study that included more than 700 patients found that tumors
less than 11 cm in diameter carried 5- and
10-year DFS rates of 73% and 65%, respectively,
and 57% and 49% for tumors larger than 11 cm
(P < .001).62 The role of tumor size as an independent predictor of survival persisted on multivariate
analysis.
The T3a category has engendered the most
controversy, owing largely to its inclusion of various degrees of invasiveness and extension into
one substage. At present, T3a describes any tumor that extends into the perinephric or renal sinus
fat, or into the ipsilateral adrenal gland. While perinephric fat invasion is diagnosed on pathologic
examination, extension into the ipsilateral adrenal
gland can often be visualized on preoperative imaging. It is therefore difficult to separate the controversies regarding the T3a substage into
clinical and pathologic arguments. Nevertheless,
the main controversy regarding the T3a substage
concerns the implied notion that extension into
perinephric and renal sinus fat represents a similar
risk level as adrenal invasion.48
A recent study from Columbia University demonstrated that T2 tumors had worse DFS than
those staged as pT3a, that is, tumor size larger
than 7 cm was a more important prognostic factor
than the presence or absence of perinephric fat invasion.64 With a median follow-up of 31 months,
DFS at 5 years for patients with T2 and T3a disease was 68% and 85%, respectively, leading to
the conclusion that tumor extension beyond the
renal capsule is not as important as tumor size.
Similarly, in a review of almost 1,800 patients
Siemer and colleagues65 found no independent
prognostic value for perinephric fat involvement.
Similar conclusions have been made by other
researchers.64 These findings call into question
whether there is any prognostic significance to
including perinephric fat invasion in a staging
system.
The inclusion of ipsilateral adrenal involvement
with the other features of T3a disease has also
been criticized.66 First, adrenal involvement in the
absence of extension beyond Gerotas fascia is
rare. In their prospective analysis of 128 nephrectomies for clinical stage T1 to T3b (N0M0) disease,
Kletscher and colleagues67 found that the incidence of ipsilateral adrenal involvement was less
than 2%. Other studies have echoed these
results.68
More important, however, is that adrenal
involvement appears to be associated with significantly worse outcome than perinephric or renal
sinus fat involvement.65 Han and colleagues69
noted that after radical nephrectomy, median
survival and 5-year DFS for patients with ipsilateral
adrenal gland involvement was 12.5 months and
0%, respectively, compared with 36 months and
36% for T3a patients with no adrenal involvement.
This difference held in multivariate analysis
controlling for grade and nodal status. Interestingly, they also found that the DFS of patients
with adrenal involvement was statistically equivalent to that for patients with T4 disease.
Tumor extension into the venous system is not
uncommon in newly diagnosed patients, with up
to 9% having involvement of either the renal vein
or vena cava.70 The 2002 TNM system separates
venous thrombus involvement into two categories:
T3b includes thrombus extending into the renal
vein and up to the inferior vena cava (IVC) below

the diaphragm; and T3c describes tumors with
thrombus in the IVC above the diaphragm. Findings
by Moinzadeh and Libertino71 argued against this
separation. With a mean follow-up of 60 months,
they found that 10-year survival of patients with
renal vein involvement was 66%, versus 29% in patients with involvement of the infra-diaphragmatic
IVC. Given this distinct difference in survival, separating T3b disease into two groups may be justified.
In an attempt to address some of the perceived
deficiencies of the TNM staging system, new prognostic tools have been proposed that incorporate
additional information. Lam and colleagues66
recently reviewed the literature on the prognostic
significance of variables not included in the TNM
system, including tumor grade, histologic subtype,
the presence of sarcomatoid features, tumor
necrosis, collecting system invasion, and patient
performance status. Each of these variables has
been found to be associated with prognosis. As
a result, some argue that a more comprehensive
staging system should be used as a complement
to the TNM system.
Nomograms are quantitative tools that provide
percentage estimates of survival or recurrence
based on both clinical and/or pathologic variables.
Nomograms for RCC have a history dating back 20
years, when Elson and colleagues72 classified patients based partly on Eastern Cooperative
Oncology Group (ECOG) status. Since then, there
have been several attempts to create more comprehensive and prognostically useful nomograms.
Kattan and colleagues73 included tumor size,
histology, and the presence or absence of symptoms at presentation into their nomogram, resulting in an accurate prognosticator of 5-year DFS.
However, whereas past studies have shown a significant difference in survival between incidentally
detected and symptomatic tumors,12 the significance of symptoms does not seem to hold on multivariate analysis controlling for tumor size, stage,
and grade.74 In addition to symptoms, Frank and
colleagues have devised the Stage, Size, Grade,
Necrosis (SSIGN) staging system for clear-cell
carcinoma, which also appears to provide accurate estimates of DFS at 5 years.
The UCLA Integrated Staging System (UISS)
incorporates TNM, grade, and ECOG status.
Using this data, it stratifies patients into five subgroups according to 2- and 5-ear DFS estimates.75
The UISS has been found to be a more accurate
predictor of risk for developing metastases.76
A recent study by Cindolo and colleagues77 compared the predictive accuracy of four prognostic
models, including the Kattan and UISS nomograms. Their results suggest that the Kattan model
was the most accurate for predicting survival.
SUMMARY
The increasing incidence of renal cell carcinoma
over the past 2 decades can be in part explained
by the expanding use of abdominal imaging. As
a result, the vast majority of incident renal cancers
today are small, localized, and asymptomatic.
However, the well-documented rise in all stages
of RCC, including advanced and metastatic disease, calls into question the nature of these
asymptomatic lesions. The expected screening
effect of detecting RCC when it is small and localized, with subsequent decreases in diseasespecific mortality, has not been observed. In fact,
disease-specific mortality is actually rising, especially in the black community.
The question of what these asymptomatic
lesions represent is important. Since effective
surgical therapies have not decreased overall
mortality rates from RCC, we must question our
present treatment paradigm of these incidentally
detected cancers. Evidence from available active
surveillance protocols provides some insight into
the natural course of these masses, but the
evidence is as of yet insufficient to establish clinical standards. As a result, the treatment of incidentally detected masses using aggressive,
extirpative therapies remains the norm, but with
more minimally invasive options as well as energy
ablative therapies being increasingly employed.
Racial disparities in the incidence of RCC may
be in part explained by the preponderance of
two well-established risk factors for RCC in the
black population. Multiple studies have shown
that both hypertension and obesity are indeed
associated with RCC, although the exact mechanism of the relationship has yet to be elucidated.
Blacks are particularly affected by these risk factors, which may help to explain the increasing incidence of RCC in this population. Effective
interventions aimed at reducing obesity, hypertension, and smokingespecially in the most vulnerable populationsmay help to reduce the
incidence of RCC in the future.
REFERENCES
1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics,
2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:4366.
2. Silverberg E, Holleb AI. Cancer statistics, 1971. CA
Cancer J Clin 1971;21:1331.
3. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al.
Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to
reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;
98(18):13314.
589
590

4. Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, et al. Rising
incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States.
JAMA 1999;281:162831.
5. Homma Y, Kawabe K, Kitamura T, et al. Increased
incidental detection and reduced mortality in renal
cancerrecent retrospective analysis at eight institutions. Int J Urol 1995;2(2):7780.
6. Bretheau D, Koutani A, Lechevallier E, et al. A
French national epidemiologic survey on renal cell
carcinoma. Oncology Committee of the Association
Francaise dUrologie. Cancer 1998;82(3):53844.
7. Patard JJ, Rodriguez A, Rioux-Leclercq N, et al.
Prognostic significance of the mode of detection in
renal tumours. BJU Int 2002;90(4):35863.
8. Luciani LG, Cestari R, Tallarigo C. Incidental renal
cell carcinomaage and stage characterization
and clinical implications: study of 1092 patients.
Urology 2000;56(1):5862.
9. Konnak JW, Grossman HB. Renal cell carcinoma as
an incidental finding. J Urol 1985;134(6):10946.
10. Skinner DG, Colvin RB, Vermillion CD, et al. Diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma A clinical and pathologic study of 309 cases. Cancer
1971;28(5):116577.
11. Jayson M, Sanders H. Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology
1998;51(2):2035.
12. Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB, et al. Prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of 643 patients using the revised 1997 TNM
staging criteria. J Urol 2000;163(4):10905.
13. Lee CT, Katz J, Shi W, et al. Surgical management of
renal tumors 4 cm or less in a contemporary cohort.
J Urol 2000;163(3):7306.
14. Hock LM, Lynch J, Balaji KC. Increasing incidence
of all stages of kidney cancer in the last 2 decades
in the United States: an analysis of surveillance,
epidemiology and end results program data. J Urol
2002;167(1):5760.
15. Parkin CM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, et alIn: Cancer
incidence in five continents, Vol VIII. Lyon (France):
International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2002.
16. Aron M, Nguyen MM, Stein RJ, et al. Impact of gender in renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of the SEER
database. Eur Urol 2008;54(1):13340.
17. Ries LAG, Harkins D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer
statistics review, 19752004. Available at: http://
seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/. Accessed February 1, 2008.
18. Vaishampayan UN, Do H, Hussain M, et al. Racial
disparity in incidence patterns and outcome of
kidney cancer. Urology 2003;62(6):10127.
19. Tripathi RT, Heilbrun LK, Jain V, et al. Racial disparity in
outcomes of a clinical trial population with metastatic
renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2006;68(2):296301.
20. Ries LAG, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 19731996. Available at:
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1973_1996.
Accessed
February 1, 2008.
Davis CJJ, Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA. Renal medullary carcinoma. The seventh sickle cell nephropathy.
Am J Surg Pathol 1995;19(1):111.
Berndt SI, Carter HB, Schoenberg MP, et al. Disparities in treatment and outcome for renal cell cancer
among older black and white patients. J Clin Oncol
2007;25(24):358995.
Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Belldegrun AS. The changing natural history of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol
2001;166(5):161123.
Parsons JK, Schoenberg MS, Carter HB. Incidental
renal tumors: casting doubt on the efficacy of early
intervention. Urology 2001;57(6):10135.
Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Are increasing
5-year survival rates evidence of success against
cancer? JAMA 2000;284(16):29758.
Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, et al. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses:
meta-analysis and review of the world literature.
J Urol 2006;175(2):42531.
Schachter LR, Cookson MS, Chang SS, et al.
Second prize: frequency of benign renal cortical
tumors and histologic subtypes based on size in
a contemporary series: what to tell our patients.
J Endourol 2007;21(8):81923.
Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. Solid renal
tumors: an analysis of pathological features related
to tumor size. J Urol 2003;170(6 Pt 1):221720.
Duchene DA, Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, et al. Histopathology of surgically managed renal tumors: analysis of
a contemporary series. Urology 2003;62(5):82730.
Collins S, McKiernan J, Landman J. Update on the
epidemiology and biology of renal cortical
neoplasms. J Endourol 2006;20(12):97585.
Lipworth L, Tarone RE, McLaughlin JK. The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2006;176(6):
23538.
Murai M, Oya M. Renal cell carcinoma: etiology, incidence and epidemiology. Curr Opin Urol 2004;
14(4):22933.
Vineis P, Alavanja M, Buffler P, et al. Tobacco and
cancer: recent epidemiological evidence. J Natl
Cancer Inst 2004;96(2):99106.
Chow WH, Gridley G, Fraumeni JF Jr, et al. Obesity,
hypertension, and the risk of kidney cancer in men.
N Engl J Med 2000;343(18):130511.
Hunt JD, van der Hel OL, McMillan GP, et al. Renal
cell carcinoma in relation to cigarette smoking:
meta-analysis of 24 studies. Int J Cancer 2005;
114(1):1018.
Parker AS, Cerhan JR, Janney CA, et al. Smoking
cessation and renal cell carcinoma. Ann Epidemiol
2003;13(4):24551.
Bjorge T, Tretli S, Engeland A. Relation of height and
body mass index to renal cell carcinoma in two
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
million Norwegian men and women. Am J Epidemiol

2004;160(12):116876.
Calle EE, Kaaks R. Overweight, obesity and cancer:
epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4(8):57997.
Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, et al. Prevalence
of overweight and obesity in the United States,
19992004. JAMA 2006;295(13):154955.
Gago-Dominguez M, Castelao JE, Yuan J-M, et al.
Lipid peroxidation: a novel and unifying concept of
the etiology of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Causes
Control 2002;13(3):28793.
Grossman E, Messerli FH, Boyko V, et al. Is there an
association between hypertension and cancer mortality? Am J Med 2002;112(6):47986.
Grove JS, Nomura A, Severson RK, et al. The association of blood pressure with cancer incidence in
a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134(9):
9427.
Fraser GE, Phillips RL, Beeson WL. Hypertension,
antihypertensive medication and risk of renal carcinoma in California Seventh-day Adventists. Int
J Epidemiol 1990;19(4):8328.
Hajjar I, Kotchen JM, Kotchen TA. Hypertension:
trends in prevalence, incidence, and control. Annu
Rev Public Health 2006;27:46590.
Burt VL, Cutler JA, Higgins M, et al. Trends in the
prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of
hypertension in the adult US population. Data from
the health examination surveys, 19601991. Hypertension 1995;26:609.
Glover MJ, Greenlund KJ, Ayala C, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities in prevalence, treatment, and control
of hypertensionUnited States, 19922002. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54:79.
Harmer M. TNM classification of malignant tumors.
3rd edition. Geneva (Switzerland): International
Union Against Cancer; 1974.
Howard GE, Wood CG. Staging refinements in renal
cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Urol 2006;16(5):31720.
Guinan P, Sobin LH, Algaba F, et al. TNM staging of
renal carcinoma: workgroup No. 3. Cancer 1997;
80(5):9923.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Galfano A, et al. Neoplasm
staging and organ-confined renal cell carcinoma:
a systematic review. Eur Urol 2004;46(5):55964.
Green FL, Page D, Morrow M. AJCC cancer staging
manual. 6th edition. New York: Springer; 2002.
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(6):19303.
Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. Nephron
sparing surgery for appropriately selected renal cell
carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm results in outcome
similar to radical nephrectomy. J Urol 2004;171(3):
106670.
54. Patard JJ, Shvarts O, Lam JS, et al. Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based
on an international multicenter experience. J Urol
2004;171(6 Pt 1):21815.
55. Mitchell RE, Gilbert SM, Murphy AM, et al. Partial
nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy offer similar
cancer outcomes in renal cortical tumors 4 cm or
larger. Urology 2006;67(2):2604.
56. Ficarra V, Schips L, Guille` F, et al. Multiinstitutional
European validation of the 2002 TNM staging system in conventional and papillary localized renal
cell carcinoma. Cancer 2005;104(5):96874.
57. Salama ME, Guru K, Stricker H, et al. pT1 substaging in renal cell carcinoma: validation of the 2002
TNM staging modification of malignant renal epithelial tumors. J Urol 2005;173(5):14925.
58. Cheville JC, Blute ML, Zincke H, et al. Stage pT1
conventional (clear cell) renal cell carcinoma: pathological features associated with cancer specific survival. J Urol 2001;166(2):4536.
59. Ficarra V, Guille F, Schips L, et al. Proposal for revision of the TNM classification system for renal cell
carcinoma. Cancer 2005;104(10):211623.
60. 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(1):548.
61. Bonsib SM. T2 clear cell renal cell carcinoma is
a rare entity: a study of 120 clear cell renal cell
carcinomas. J Urol 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1199202.
62. Klatte T, Patard JJ, Goel RH, et al. Prognostic impact
of tumor size on pT2 RCC: an international multicenter experience. J Urol 2007;178(1):3540.
63. Frank I, Blute ML, Leibovich BC, et al. pT2 Classification for renal cell carcinoma. Can its accuracy
be improved? J Urol 2005;173(2):3804.
64. Murphy AM, Gilbert SM, Katz AE, et al. Re-evaluation of the tumour-node-metastasis staging of locally
advanced renal cortical tumours: absolute size (T2)
is more significant than renal capsular invasion
(T3a). BJU Int 2005;95(1):2730.
65. Siemer S, Lehmann J, Loch A, et al. Current TNM
classification of renal cell carcinoma evaluated:
revising stage T3a. J Urol 2005;173(1):337.
66. Lam JS, Shvarts O, Leppert JT, et al. Renal cell carcinoma 2005: new frontiers in staging, prognostication and targeted molecular therapy. J Urol 2005;
173(6):185362.
67. Kletscher BA, Qian J, Bostwick DG, et al. Prospective analysis of the incidence of ipsilateral adrenal
metastasis in localized renal cell carcinoma. J Urol
1996;155(6):18446.
68. Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Barbaric Z, et al. Is adrenalectomy a necessary component of radical nephrectomy? UCLA experience with 511 radical
nephrectomies. J Urol 2000;163(2):43741.
591
592

69. Han KR, Bui MH, Pantuck AJ, et al. TNM T3a renal
cell carcinoma: adrenal gland involvement is not
the same as renal fat invasion. J Urol 2003;169(3):
899903.
70. Hatcher PA, Anderson EE, Paulson DF, et al. Surgical
management and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma
invading the vena cava. J Urol 1991;145(1):203.
71. Moinzadeh A, Libertino JA. Prognostic significance of
tumor thrombus level in patients with renal cell carcinoma and venous tumor thrombus extension. Is all
T3b the same? J Urol 2004;171(2 Pt 1):598601.
72. Elson PJ, Witte RS, Trump DL. Prognostic factors for
survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic renal
cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 1988;48(24 Pt 1):73103.
73. Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 2001;166(1):637.
74. Shvarts O, Lam JS, Kim HL, et al. Staging of renal

cell carcinoma: current concepts. BJU Int 2005;
95(Suppl 2):813.
75. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Dorey F, et al. Improved
prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an
integrated staging system. J Clin Oncol 2001;
19(6):164957.
76. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Wieder J, et al. Risk group
assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to
predict the natural history of patients with surgically
resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002;
20(23):455966.
77. Cindolo L, Patard JJ, Chiodini P, et al. Comparison of
predictive accuracy of four prognostic models for
nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy: a multicenter European study. Cancer 2005;
104(7):136271.
Contemporar y
Radiologic Imaging
of Renal Cor tical Tumors
Ariadne M. Bach, MDa,*, Jingbo Zhang, MDb
KEYWORDS
Renal cortical tumor Renal cancer Renal cell carcinoma
Renal mass Kidney cancer Clear cell carcinoma
Papillary Chromophobe Oncocytoma
Magnetic resonance imaging (MR)
Computed tomography (CT) Ultrasound (US)
The renal cortical tumors are a family of neoplasms

that are subdivided into benign and malignant
neoplasm based on the Heidelberg classification,
which more accurately predicts the metastatic
potential of the tumor.1 The malignant renal parenchymal tumors include the clear cell renal
carcinoma, papillary renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, collecting duct
(Bellini duct) carcinoma, and a small number of unclassified tumors. The benign renal parenchymal
tumors include renal oncocytoma, metanephric
adenoma, metanephric adenofibroma, and papillary renal cell adenoma.
The different renal cortical tumors are
associated with different disease progression
and metastatic potential.25 The conventional
clear cell carcinomas have the greatest metastatic potential, whereas papillary and chromophobe carcinomas are associated with less
metastatic potential.5 The oncocytoma is virtually
benign.
DETECTION
CT is considered the modality of choice for detection and diagnosis of renal cortical tumors. MR
imaging and ultrasonography (US) are problemsolving tools or are used in patients who have
contraindications to IV contrast. The improvement
in radiologic imaging has led to a great increase in

the detection and earlier diagnosis of renal cortical
tumors.69 Currently greater than 70% of tumors
are discovered incidentally and are generally
small, with a median tumor size of less than or
equal to 5 cm.6,7,9 Up to 20% of the suspicious
renal cortical tumors detected may be benign
(such as oncocytoma, angiomyolipoma [AML], or
complex cyst).7
Renal US is not considered a useful screening
modality because small lesions can be easily
missed.10 CT detects more and smaller renal
masses than does US but the two modalities are
comparable in characterizing 1- to 3-cm lesions.11
Although renal sonography may not be the best
method for generalized primary screening it may
still be beneficial in secondary screening in
a more selected patient population, such as the
elderly asymptomatic population.12
Unfortunately, currently imaging has limited
criteria for diagnosing the specific type renal cortical tumor without operative resection. This article
specifically focuses on the techniques and roles
of CT, US, and MR imaging in the evaluation of
renal cortical tumors. The specific renal cortical
neoplasms discussed in this article are clear cell
renal carcinoma, papillary renal cell carcinoma,
chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, renal oncocytoma, and AML.
a
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Rockefeller Outpatient Pavilion, 160 East
53rd Street, Radiology-8th floor, New York, NY 10022, USA
b
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021,
USA
E-mail address: bacha@mskcc.org (A.M. Bach).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 593604

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.012

594
Bach & Zhang

CT Scan
A specific renal protocol is ordered to work up
a known or suspected renal lesion. At our institution, a CT scan dedicated for evaluation of a renal
mass typically consists of three imaging series:
precontrast, corticomedullary phase, and late
nephrographic/early excretory phase.1315 Precontrast images are used for identification of calcifications and fat, and to provide a baseline density
Hounsfield unit (HU) measurement for evaluating
the degree and pattern of enhancement in cystic
or solid renal masses.15 Nonionic intravenous (IV)
contrast is injected through an IV line. Corticomedullary images are used for the identification of the
renal lesion and assessment of lesion vascularity,
renal vascular anatomy, and tumor involvement
of venous structures.13 They are probably the
most informative for lesion characterization. Not
all renal tumors are well identified during the corticomedullary phase and the images obtained during a later phase of enhancement (ie, the
nephrographic or excretory phase) are included
for the detection of renal masses, especially those
of smaller size.1619 These excretory phase images
are also helpful for identification of anatomic abnormalities or tumor involvement of the renal collecting system.13 High accuracy (sensitivity up to
100%, specificity up to 95%) has been reported
in the detection of renal cortical tumors using
proper technique.19
The key features in characterizing a renal lesion
on CT are: cystic versus solid, enhancement
(attenuation change from the noncontrast to the
contrast-enhanced images), margins, presence
and type of calcification, and the presence of fat.
There are strict CT criteria in characterizing a lesion
as simple and therefore a benign cyst. The cyst
must be well marginated, nonenhancing, homogeneous low attenuation (020 HU), and have a thin
smooth wall. If the lesion on the precontrast study
has measurements greater than 20 HU it is not
a simple cyst and may represent a complex cyst
or a mass. A contrast-enhanced study must be
performed to evaluate for enhancement.
Enhancement was considered a change of
10 HU after IV contrast when CT was first introduced and on the single detector scanner. Now
with the advancement in CT technology and the
use of multidetectors the assessment of enhancement is more complicated. One common pitfall in
characterizing renal lesions by CT is the presence
of pseudo-enhancement in renal cysts on
contrast-enhanced CT images. This finding is
believed to be attributable to volume averaging
and beam-hardening effects, and the degree of
pseudo-enhancement is greater in smaller renal
cysts.2026 A change of more than 15 HU is

considered by some to indicate enhancement.21,27
Others consider a change of 10 to 20 HU to be
indeterminate and in need of further evaluation.28
Enhancement must be unequivocal because it
implies that the lesion has a blood supply, is solid,
and is considered a renal cortical tumor after the
additional imaging features are considered. For
lesions with indeterminate enhancement and in
those patients for whom IV contrast is contraindicated US or MR imaging can be performed.
Generally speaking the presence of calcifications in a solid renal mass indicates malignancy.29
Calcification in a complex cyst with no enhancing
soft tissue elements is not concerning for
malignancy.30
The presence of macroscopic fat implies benignity and the presence of an AML. Fat is diagnosed
on the precontrast images. A low-density area,
preferably within the center of the lesion, is
selected by a region of interest and the HU are
measured. If the HU are 10 or less, then fat can
be confidentially identified (Fig. 1).31 The fatty
component needs to be in the center of the renal
lesion. Large renal cortical lesions can grow and
engulf the perirenal and sinus fat. Alternatively
extrarenal lesions can grow centrally and invade
the renal cortex giving the impression that the
lesion is renal cortical in origin when it is not. As
the name implies, a renal cortical tumor has its epicenter/origin from the renal cortex. An important
role of imaging is to correctly identify the origin/
location of a tumor. On imaging we look for
a claw or beak sign of normal-appearing renal cortex at the periphery of the mass that indicates that
the mass is renal cortical in origin. There are some
caveats that need to be remembered. There have
been reports of fat-containing renal cell carcinoma.3236 Most have contained calcification.
Renal cell cancer can rarely contain fat and no
calcification.35,36 It is recommended that renal
masses containing both fat and calcification
should be considered malignant.
Exophytic lesions are significantly more likely
than central lesions to be the less aggressive
nonclear cell tumors and clear cell tumors are
more likely to be central, implying that the exophytic lesion has a better prognosis.37 Central
renal lesions may be urothelial in origin and it is
important to alert the clinician of this possibility
because this may affect management.
The renal veins and the inferior vena cava (IVC)
are an important part of the evaluation in a patient
who has a suspected renal malignancy. A thrombus involving the renal vein or IVC in a patient
who has malignant renal tumor may represent
tumor thrombus, blood clot, or both (Fig. 2). The
Contemporary Radiologic Imaging
Fig.1. A 55-year-old man who has prostate cancer and incidentally discovered renal angiomyolipoma indicated by
arrows. CT demonstrates the mass to have a HU of 59, consistent with fat. The mass is very echogenic on US.
presence of enhancement within the thrombus indicates tumor thrombus, whereas bland thrombus
would not enhance after contrast administration.
Solid renal cortical tumors
Enhancement is important in the characterization
of solid renal cortical tumor.
A study at our institution by one of the authors
(JZ) demonstrated that 90% of the clear cell cancers were hypervascular and heterogenous, 75%
were of the papillary type and were hypovascular,
and chromophobe often demonstrated moderate
enhancement. A mixed enhancement pattern
was most predictive of clear cell.38
Clear cell carcinoma tends to be hypervascular
and heterogeneous (Fig. 3).3842 Clear cell carcinomas demonstrate peritumoral vascularity more
frequently than other malignant renal tumors of
similar size.43
Papillary renal cell cancer is typically hypovascular and homogeneous (Fig. 4).38,42
The chromophobe is more variable in appearance. It may demonstrate moderate enhancement.38 The spoke-wheellike enhancement with
a central scar has been described as an important
imaging feature.44
Oncocytomas may overlap with renal cell carcinoma in imaging features and degree of enhancement.38,39,45 Classic angiographic findings for
oncocytoma are a spoke-wheel pattern, a homogeneous tumor blush, and a sharp, smooth rim.46
But none of these findings are specific and a renal
cell carcinoma may have any or all of the classic
findings.46 The diagnosis of oncocytoma may be
suggested if a central stellate scar is identified on
CT within an otherwise homogenous tumor.47
The presence of macroscopic fat is characteristic of an AML. AML may present without evidence
Fig. 2. A 57-year-old man who has 10 14 cm right renal clear cell invading the right renal vein and extending
into the IVC. (A) CT demonstrates mass and arrow indicates the thrombus. (B) MR image with arrows pointing out
the tumor thrombus in the renal vein and IVC.
595
596
Bach & Zhang
Fig. 3. A 55-year-old man who has clear cell cancer. Renal protocol CT demonstrates an enhancing right partially
cystic mass with minimal calcification. The mass enhances from 16 (A, noncontrast CT) to 60 HU (B, postcontrast
CT).
the cystic renal mass is graded as Bosniak category 4 and considered malignant. The presence
of nodular or septal enhancement has been shown
to have the highest sensitivity for predicting malignancy with good to moderate interobserver
agreement.52
of macroscopic fatthe so-called AML with minimal fat.48,49 AMLs have been described as being
homogeneously high attenuation on the unenhanced study and demonstrated homogeneous
enhancement.48,49 Overlap has been reported
with renal cancer.38,48 Small (%3 cm) homogeneously enhancing renal masses on CT may be
an AML with minimal fat or renal cell carcinoma.50
Ultrasound
Cystic renal cortical tumors

The Bosniak Classification system grades the
cystic renal masses based on CT findings for the
likelihood of malignancy.51 Category 1 lesions
are simple cysts. Category 2 lesions are benign
minimally complex cysts that may contain thin
septations with calcification. Category 2F lesions
are more complex cysts with increase septations
and calcification and require follow-up. Category
3 lesions are indeterminate masses with thick
irregular walls and may contain calcification.
When any solid enhancing component is present,
US is an important tool in the evaluation of the

renal cortical tumor. It can characterize a renal
lesion as cystic or solid. When a lesion is
described as cystic it is important to indicate if
the lesion is a simple cyst and therefore benign,
or a complex cyst and a possible surgical lesion.
A simple cyst is anechoic: without echoes and
black on the images. A simple cyst has a thin imperceptible wall, posterior enhancement, round
or oval shape, and is avascular. If the cyst does
not fulfill all the criteria of a simple cyst then it is
complex, and the possibility of a cystic renal carcinoma may need to be considered depending on
Fig. 4. A 64-year-old woman who has a papillary renal cell carcinoma in the upper pole of the left kidney. Cyst is
imaged in the upper pole of the right kidney. (A) Noncontrast CT. (B) Postcontrast CT.

the sonographic features. Features on US suggestive of a malignant cystic lesion include a thickened
(>2 mm) cystic wall, numerous septations, thickened or nodular septations (>2 mm), irregular or
central calcifications, and the presence of flow in
the septations or cystic wall on Doppler imaging.
If any suspicious features are present correlation
with other imaging modalities, such as CT and
MR imaging, is recommended. Rarely a benign
cyst can become complex in the setting of hemorrhage or infection, and could mimic a complex
cystic lesion. In that setting comparison with prior
imaging and history is critical.
Most renal cortical tumors on US are solid and
described by their echogenicity. The terms used
to describe the echogenicity are anechoic, isoechoic, hypoechoic, and hyperechoic. A simple
cyst is anechoic. The renal cortical tumors may
be hyperechoic, isoechoic, or hypoechoic relative
to the normal renal cortex (Fig. 5). A hyperechoic
mass has more echoes and is brighter/lighter
than the normal/adjacent renal cortex. An isoechoic lesion is the same as the adjacent renal
parenchyma and the hypoechoic mass has fewer
echoes and is darker. Cystic areas and calcifications may be present.
All solid renal masses on US usually need to be
evaluated with a renal protocol CT for the presence
of fat. If fat is present in a noncalcified lesion on CT
then in most cases an AML can be diagnosed. AML
is typically intensely echogenic and can cause
acoustic shadowing.53 Every echogenic mass in
the kidney must be further evaluated with a renal
protocol CT to confirm the presence of fat (see
Fig. 1). Up to one third of small renal cell cancers
(<3 cm in diameter) can be markedly hyperechoic
and mimic AML. Two percent of the renal cancers
larger than 3 cm can be markedly echogenic.54 Alternatively, not all AMLs are hyperechoic and some
are only diagnosed after surgical excision.
Attempts have been made to differentiate renal
cortical tumors into the different histologic
subtypes based on US characteristics. Papillary

renal cell carcinomas tend to be hypoechoic or
isoechoic but some may also be hyperechoic.55
Work has been done in US using Doppler imaging, which allows for assessment of vascular
flow.56 A recent study from our institution indicates
that vascular flow within a renal mass, identified by
color or power Doppler, is strongly associated with
conventional clear cell carcinoma (Fig. 6).57 Contrast-enhanced US has been found to be useful
in the diagnosis of renal cortical tumors and in
the detection of tumor blood flow in hypovascular
renal masses.58 Contrast-enhanced US has also
been useful in classifying renal cystic lesions into
the Bosniak classification.59
US and cross-sectional imaging modalities (CT
and MR) complement each other in the characterization of renal lesions. In the subgroup of patients
whose renal lesions are indeterminate on US,
a dedicated renal protocol CT or MR imaging
may help further characterize the lesion.60
Conversely, US may prove useful for renal lesions
that are considered indeterminate on CT.
US may also assist in the preoperative evaluation of renal cortical tumors. Renal US is requested
by the urologists as a template for the intraoperative US. It assists in the selection of the proper
surgical technique and determining if a partial
nephrectomy can be attempted. Because of its
multiplanar capability US can demonstrate important landmarks and planes of sections that can be
duplicated in the operating room.
MR Imaging
MR imaging has distinct advantages over other
imaging modalities in the detection and staging
of renal neoplasms, because of its intrinsic high
soft tissue contrast and direct multiplanar imaging
capabilities.61 In addition, pseudo-enhancement
artifacts that frequently afflict CT examinations
are typically not present on MR images. MR
Fig. 5. Spectrum of solid renal cortical tumors on US. (A) 5-cm hyperechoic oncocytoma. (B) Transverse US image of
the left kidney demonstrates a 1.9-cm hypoechoic papillary renal cell carcinoma indicated by calipers. (C) 5-cm
isoechoic right renal oncocytoma indicated by calipers.
597
598
Bach & Zhang
Fig. 6. A 62-year-old man who has a 4.6-cm solid vascular clear cell carcinoma in the left upper pole on CT (A).
(B) US demonstrates flow in the mass on color Doppler.
imaging may be used, therefore, to definitively

determine the presence or absence of contrast
enhancement in a renal mass that poses as a diagnostic problem on CT.62 Compared with US, MR
imaging is not as operator dependent, nor is its image quality as susceptible to the patients body
habitus. There are certain limitations to MR imaging, however, because of its relatively long acquisition time, greater cost, and thus limited access.
In addition, MR imaging used to be considered
safe in patients who had renal failure because
gadolinium-based contrast agents were believed
to be renally excreted yet nonnephrotoxic. MR
imaging was often performed as the modality of
choice for patients who had renal dysfunction
yet needed contrast-enhanced cross-sectional
imaging. Unfortunately, an association between
administration of gadolinium-based contrast

agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, a rare
but potentially disabling or even fatal sequela,
has been recently established in patients who
had renal failure undergoing MR imaging.63,64
In patients who have moderate to severe renal
dysfunction, therefore, the current recommendation is that administration of gadolinium-based
contrast agents should be performed with caution
and alternative imaging modalities should be
considered.
A modern MR imaging protocol aimed at evaluating renal masses typically includes the following
breath-hold sequences: (1) a T1-weighted inand opposed-phase gradient echo sequence,
which is helpful in identifying macroscopic and
microscopic fat in a renal mass (Fig. 7);65
Fig. 7. A 30-year-old woman who has right renal angiomyolipoma. (A) Axial T1-weighted in-phase. MR image
demonstrates a right renal mass containing areas of T1 hyperintensity. (B) Axial T1-weighted opposed-phase
MR image demonstrates drop-off of signal in the T1 hyperintense areas, indicating the presence of microscopic
fat. (C) Axial T1-weighted fat-saturated contrast-enhanced MR image demonstrates heterogeneous enhancement
in the right renal mass.

(2) a T2-weighted half-Fourier single shot fast spin
echo sequence in axial or coronal planes, which is
useful for evaluating the overall anatomy, renal collecting system, and the complexity of a cystic renal
lesion; and (3) a dynamic contrast-enhanced
T1-weighted fat-suppressed sequence for evaluation of the presence and pattern of enhancement
in a renal mass.66 For the dynamic contrast-enhanced images, three-dimensional fast spoiled
gradient echo sequences are typically performed66,67 before and after contrast administration during the arterial, corticomedullary, and
nephrographic phases.66,68 Multiplanar reconstruction may be performed if necessary to better
delineate the spatial relationship of the renal mass
to adjacent anatomic structures. If necessary,
a dedicated MR angiography sequence may be
performed in the coronal plane during the arterial
phase for better visualization of accessory renal
vessels and facilitation of surgical planning. Coronal images may also be obtained during the excretory phase (often with administration of diuretics),
from which maximum-intensity projection images
can then be obtained to produce intravenous pyelogramlike images. For patients who cannot
cooperate with breath-hold instructions, alternative T1-weighted sequences may need to be
explored to reduce respiratory motionrelated
artifacts. For example, a two-dimensional T1weighted MR sequence with an inversion recovery
pulse followed by a long echo train may provide
T1-weighted soft tissue contrast and shortened
acquisition time to reduce image blur. The T2weighted half-Fourier single shot fast spin echo
sequences are more robust and less susceptible
to motion artifacts, and can typically provide diagnostic images even in nonbreath-hold patients.
MR imaging is useful in the detection and differentiation of cystic and solid renal lesions,69 with
accuracy comparable or superior to that of CT.70
MR imaging may function as an excellent tool for
initial diagnosis and posttreatment follow-up in
patients who have renal tumors. MR imaging is

known to be reliable for evaluation of small renal
masses,71,72 in which case CT can be problematic
because of pseudo-enhancement. In addition,
because of its multiplanar capability, MR imaging
may be superior to CT for determining the origin
of a renal mass.
Solid renal tumors are typically isointense or
slightly hypointense on T1-weighted images,69,73
although some renal tumors may contain hemorrhage or a lipid component and demonstrate T1
hyperintensity.74 Clear cell carcinomas may contain intracellular lipids and demonstrate focal or
diffuse signal loss on opposed-phase images,
which does not necessarily indicate AML.66,75,76
Renal cortical tumors tend to be mildly hyperintense73 on T2-weighted images and demonstrate
variable enhancement on dynamic contrastenhanced images (Fig. 8).69 Simple cysts, on the
other hand, are hypointense on T1- and hyperintense on T2-weighted images. Although some
complex cysts may demonstrate a higher T1 signal
and lower T2 signal because of hemorrhage, debris, or proteinaceous material, there should be
no enhancement in cysts after administration of
contrast. Identification of the presence of contrast
enhancement is essential in evaluating a renal
mass. Generally speaking, any nonfat-containing
solid tumor or any cystic lesion containing measurable enhancing soft tissue components (such as
mural nodules, thickened septations, or cystic
walls) is suggestive of a renal neoplasm and likely
needs to be managed surgically.28,62,70,7779 It has
been reported that the optimal percentage of
enhancement threshold for distinguishing cysts
from solid tumors on MR imaging is 15% when
measurement is performed 2 to 4 minutes after
administration of contrast material.78 This threshold may be achieved with quantitative analysis of
enhancement with signal intensity measurements.78 Qualitative analysis of enhancement
with image subtraction is equally accurate,
Fig. 8. A 58-year-old man who has right renal clear cell carcinoma. (A) Axial T2-weighted single-shot fast spin echo
MR image demonstrates a mildly T2-hyperintense mass in the right kidney. (B) Axial T1-weighted fat-saturated
contrast-enhanced MR image demonstrates heterogeneous enhancement in the renal mass.
599
600
Bach & Zhang

particularly in the setting of masses that are hyperintense on unenhanced MR images.62 Similar to
those seen on CT, three patterns of enhancement
have been observed in renal cell carcinomas on
MR imaging: predominantly peripheral, heterogeneous, and homogeneous.69 A classification
system based on MR imaging feature analysis
using certain imaging characteristics, such as
lesion size, peripheral versus central location of
the renal lesion, the T2 signal intensity and degree
of enhancement of the lesion, the presence of subvoxel fat on chemical shift imaging, the presence
of intratumoral necrosis, retroperitoneal vascular
collaterals, renal vein thrombosis, and so forth,
was recently proposed to help predict the histologic type and nuclear grade of renal masses.80
CT and MR imaging perform similarly in classifying most cystic renal masses.81 In some cases,
however, MR images may depict additional septa,
thickening of the wall or septa, or enhancement,
which may lead to an upgraded Bosniak cyst classification and affect case management.81
In addition to the routine MR sequences, diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) is worth discussing
because it is an MR imaging technique that was
originally established in neuroimaging but has recently gained great interest among investigators
in the field of body imaging. DWI measures the
Brownian motion of water molecules in biologic
tissues, which has been shown to be inversely proportional to cellular density,82 presumably because increased cellular density limits water
diffusion in the interstitial space. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), a quantitative parameter
measured from DWI, has been shown to have
the potential of differentiating high-grade and
low-grade brain gliomas83,84 and providing incremental value to MR spectroscopy in distinguishing
between brain abscesses and necrotic brain
tumors.85 The use of DWI in body imaging is technically challenging, because this technique is generally sensitive to motion and susceptibility and
limited in signal-to-noise ratio. Its application in
abdominal imaging has been limited. With recent
advances in MR technology and faster, more
robust sequences, better image quality can be
obtained, and DWI has shown great potential for
abdominal imaging in several recent investigations.8688 For example, DWI was shown to be
useful for differentiating focal hepatic lesions,8992
and for evaluating diffuse hepatic parenchymal abnormalities, such as cirrhosis.93 A few studies have
been performed to investigate the role of DWI in
the evaluation of renal function in native9497 and
transplanted kidneys.98 In addition, studies have
shown that DWI may differentiate hydronephrosis
from pyonephrosis.99,100 Experience using DWI in
characterizing local renal lesions, especially renal

masses, has been limited to date.
One preliminary study aimed to investigate the
potential role of DWI in the characterization of renal tumors showed that renal lesions with different
tissue contents may have different diffusion characteristics.101 Solid tumor tissue has lower ADC
values than necrotic or cystic tumor tissue,
whereas necrotic or cystic tumor tissue has lower
ADC values than benign cysts. This distinction is
important for differentiating benign cysts from
extensively necrotic or cystic tumors that may
demonstrate little or no contrast enhancement
and an imaging appearance similar to a complex
benign renal cystic lesion on conventional MR
images. In addition, it seems that the T1 signal
intensity of a lesion affects the lesions ADC value.
For example, T1 hyperintense cysts have lower
ADC values than T1 hypointense cysts, and T1
hyperintense necrotic or cystic tumor areas have
lower ADC values than their T1 hypointense counterparts. The T1 characteristics of a lesion may
need to be taken into account, therefore, when
ADC values are interpreted in an attempt to evaluate a disease process. When both ADC values and
T1 features are considered, the benign cysts can
be differentiated from necrotic or cystic tumors
with only a small overlap in ADC values.101
STAGING
The sensitivity of CT for detection of regional
lymph node metastases is reported to be as high
as 95%.102 False-positive findings up to 58%
have been reported when a size criterion of 1.0
cm is used for determining nodal metastasis,
however.102
The most common metastatic sites from malignant renal cortical tumors are the lung, bone, brain,
liver, and mediastinum.103 With improved imaging,
renal tumors are being detected incidentally in
greater numbers at smaller sizes and earlier
stages, and distant metastases are unlikely in
these patients.
IMAGING FOLLOW-UP
At our institution the renal US is frequently the first
imaging obtained following renal surgery. CT of the
chest, abdomen, and pelvis is the modality of
choice for detection of local recurrence and
distant metastases. In patients allergic to iodinated contrast, gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging
of the abdomen and pelvis may be performed.
Recurrences occur in the lung, bone, nephrectomy
site, brain, liver, and the contralateral kidney.104

SUMMARY
CT with IV contrast is the imaging modality of
choice for detecting, evaluating, and following
the patient who has a renal cortical tumor. Certain
imaging features and enhancement patterns on CT
may help differentiate different subtypes of renal
tumors. MR imaging and US function as valuable
problem-solving tools or for detection and evaluation if IV contrast cannot be used. Imaging followup is important in the identification of tumor
recurrence.
REFERENCES
1. Kovacs G, Akhtar M, Beckwith BJ, et al. The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours. J Pathol
1997;183(2):1313.
2. Beck SD, Patel MI, Snyder ME, et al. Effect of papillary and chromophobe cell type on disease-free
survival after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.
Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11(1):717.
3. Eble JN, Bonsib SM. Extensively cystic renal neoplasms: cystic nephroma, cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma, multilocular cystic renal cell
carcinoma, and cystic hamartoma of renal pelvis.
Semin Diagn Pathol 1998;15(1):220.
4. McKiernan J, Yossepowitch O, Kattan MW, et al.
Partial nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors: pathologic findings and impact on outcome. Urology
2002;60(6):10039.
cell carcinoma of non-clear-cell histology. J Clin
Oncol 2002;20(9):237681.
6. Russo P. Renal cell carcinoma: presentation, staging, and surgical treatment. Semin Oncol 2000;
27(2):16076.
7. Russo P. Renal tumors: developing understanding
leads to developments in surgical treatment. BJU
Int 2006;97:910.
8. Smith SJ, Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, et al. Renal
cell carcinoma: earlier discovery and increased
detection. Radiology 1989;170(3 Pt 1):699703.
9. Russo P. Localized renal cell carcinoma. Curr Treat
Options Oncol 2001;2(5):44755.
10. Warshauer DM, McCarthy SM, Street L, et al.
Detection of renal masses: sensitivities and specificities of excretory urography/linear tomography,
US, and CT. Radiology 1988;169(2):3635.
11. Jamis-Dow CA, Choyke PL, Jennings SB, et al.
Small (%3-cm) renal masses: detection with CT
versus US and pathologic correlation. Radiology
1996;198(3):7858.
12. Malaeb BS, Martin DJ, Littooy FN, et al. The utility of
screening renal ultrasonography: identifying renal
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
cell carcinoma in an elderly asymptomatic population. BJU Int 2005;95(7):97781.

Kauczor HU, Schwickert HC, Schweden F, et al.
Bolus-enhanced renal spiral CT: technique, diagnostic value and drawbacks. Eur J Radiol 1994;
18(3):1537.
Sheth S, Scatarige JC, Horton KM, et al. Current
concepts in the diagnosis and management of
renal cell carcinoma: role of multidetector ct and
three-dimensional CT. Radiographics 2001;
21(Spec No):S23754.
Schreyer HH, Uggowitzer MM, RuppertKohlmayr A. Helical CT of the urinary organs. Eur
Radiol 2002;12(3):57591.
Yuh BI, Cohan RH, Francis IR, et al. Comparison of
nephrographic with excretory phase helical computed tomography for detecting and characterizing
renal masses. Can Assoc Radiol J 2000;51(3):
1706.
Szolar DH, Kammerhuber F, Altziebler S, et al. Multiphasic helical CT of the kidney: increased conspicuity for detection and characterization of
small (< 3-cm) renal masses. Radiology 1997;
202(1):2117.
Birnbaum BA, Jacobs JE, Ramchandani P. Multiphasic renal CT: comparison of renal cysts during
contrast-enhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol
2000;174(2):4938.
Kopka L, Fischer U, Zoeller G, et al. Dual-phase
helical CT of the kidney: value of the corticomedullary and nephrographic phase for evaluation of
renal lesions and preoperative staging of renal
cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;
169(6):15738.
Birnbaum BA, Maki DD, Chakraborty DP, et al.
Renal cyst pseudoenhancement: evaluation with
an anthropomorphic body CT phantom. Radiology
2002;225(1):8390.
Birnbaum BA, Hindman N, Lee J, et al. Renal cyst
pseudoenhancement: influence of multidetector CT
reconstruction algorithm and scanner type in phantom model. Radiology 2007;244:76775.
Coulam CH, Sheafor DH, Lefer RA, et al. Evaluation
of pseudoenhancement of renal cysts during contrast-enhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;
174(2):4938.
Bae KT, Heiken JP, Siegel CL, et al. Renal cysts: is
attenuation artifactually increased on contrastenhanced CT images? Radiology 2000;216(3):
7926.
Heneghan JP, Spielmann AL, Sheafor DH, et al.
Pseudoenhancement of simple renal cysts:
a comparison of single and multidetector helical
CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002;26(1):904.
Gokan T, Ohgiya Y, Munechika H, et al. Renal cyst
pseudoenhancement with beam hardening effect
on CT attenuation. Radiat Med 2002;20(4):18790.
601
602
Bach & Zhang

26. Abdulla C, Kalra MK, Saini S, et al. Pseudoenhancement of simulated renal cysts in a phantom
using different multidetector CT scanners. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(6):14736.
27. Hartman DS, Choyke PL, Hartman MS. Renal imaging. A practical approach to the cystic renal mass.
Radiographics 2004;24:S10115.
28. Israel GM, Bosniak MA. How I do it: evaluating
renal masses. Radiology 2005;236:44150.
29. Daniel WW, Hartman GW, Witten DM, et al. Calcified renal mass: a review of ten years experience
at the Mayo Clinic. Radiology 1972;103:5038.
30. Israel GM, Bosniak MA. Calcification in cystic renal
masses: is it important in diagnosis? Radiology
2003;226:4752.
31. Sherman JL, Hartman DS, Friedman AC, et al. Angiomyolipoma: computed tomographic-pathologic
correlation of 17 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol
1981;137:12216.
32. Helenon O, Merran S, Paraf F, et al. Unusual fatcontaining tumors of the kidney: a diagnostic
dilemma. Radiographics 1997;17(1):12944.
33. Helenon O, Chretien Y, Paraf F, et al. Renal cell carcinoma containing fat: demonstration with CT. Radiology 1993;188(2):42930.
34. Strotzer M, Lehner KB, Becker K. Detection of fat in
a renal cell carcinoma mimicking angiomyolipoma.
Radiology 1993;188(2):4278.
35. Schuster TG, Ferguson MR, Baker DE, et al. Papillary renal cell carcinoma containing fat without
calcification mimicking angiomyolipoma on CT.
Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:14024.
36. DAngelo PC, Gash JR, Horn AW, et al. Fat in renal
cell carcinoma that lacks associated calcifications.
Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:9312.
37. Schachter LR, Bach AM, Snyder ME, et al. The
impact of tumour location on the histological subtype of renal cortical tumours. BJU Int 2006;98(1):
636.
38. Zhang J, Lefkowitz R, Ishill N, et al. Differentiation
of solid renal cortical tumors by CT. Radiology
2007;244(2):494504.
39. Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Mukai M, et al. Doublephase helical CT of small renal parenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and
tumor angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr
2000;24(6):83542.
40. Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, et al. Differentiation of
subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT
scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178(6):
1499506.
41. Sheir KZ, El-Azab M, Mosbah A, et al. Differentiation of renal cell carcinoma subtypes by multislice
computerized tomography. J Urol 2005;174(2):
4515 [discussion: 455].
42. Prasad SR, Humphrey PA, Catena JR, et al. Common and uncommon histologic subtypes of renal
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
cell carcinoma: imaging spectrum with pathologic

correlation. Radiographics 2006;26:1795806.
Zhang J, Lefkowitz RA, Wang L, et al. Significance
of peritumoral vascularity on CT in evaluation of renal cortical tumor. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;
31(5):71723.
Kondo T, Nakazawa H, Sakai F, et al. Spoke-wheellike enhancement as an important imaging finding
of chromophobe cell renal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging studies. Int J Urol 2004;
11:81724.
Prasad SR, Surabhi VR, Menias CO, et al. Benign
renal neoplasms in adults: cross-sectional imaging
findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:15864.
Ambos MA, Bosniak MA, Valensi QJ, et al. Angiographic patterns in renal oncocytomas. Radiology
1978;129(3):61522.
Quinn MJ, Hartman DS, Friedman AC, et al. Renal
oncocytoma: new observations. Radiology 1984;
153(1):4953.
Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, et al. Angiomyolipoma
with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology 2004;
230(3):67784.
Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Narimatsu Y, et al. Angiomyolipoma: imaging findings in lesions with minimal fat. Radiology 1997;205(2):497502.
Silverman SG, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, et al. Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis,
and imagin evaluation. Radiographics 2007;27:
113143.
Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to
renal cysts. Radiology 1986;158(1):110.
Benjaminov O, Atri M, OMalley MO. Enhancing
component on CT to predict maliganacy in cystic
renal masses and interobserver agreeement of different CT features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:
66572.
Siegel CL, Middleton WD, Teefey SA, et al. Angiomyolipoma and renal cell carcinoma: US differentiation. Radiology 1996;198(3):78993.
Forman HP, Middleton WD, Melson GL, et al.
Hyperechoic renal cell carcinomas: increase in
detection at US. Radiology 1993;188(2):4314.
Press GA, McClennan BL, Melson GL, et al. Papillary renal cell carcinoma: CT and sonographic
evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;143(5):
10059.
Taylor KJ, Ramos I, Carter D, et al. Correlation of
Doppler US tumor signals with neovascular morphologic features. Radiology 1988;166(1 Pt 1):
5762.
Raj GV, Bach A, Iasonos A, et al. Utility of pre-operative color Doppler ultrasonography in predicting
the histology of renal lesions. J Urology 2007;
177(1):538.

58. Tamai H, Takiguchi Y, Oka M, et al. Contrastenhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of solid
renal tumors. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24(12):
163540.
59. Ascenti G, Mazziott S, Zimbaro G, et al. Complex
cystic renal masses: characterization with
contrast-enhanced US. Radiology 2007;243:
15865.
60. Prasad SR, Saini S, Stewart S, et al. CT characterization of indeterminate renal masses: targeted
or comprehensive scanning? J Comput Assist
Tomogr 2002;26(5):7257.
61. Pretorius ES, Wickstrom ML, Siegelman ES. MR
imaging of renal neoplasms. Magn Reson Imaging
Clin N Am 2000;8(4):81336.
62. Hecht EM, Israel GM, Krinsky GA, et al. Renal
masses: quantitative analysis of enhancement
with signal intensity measurements versus qualitative analysis of enhancement with image subtraction for diagnosing malignancy at MR imaging.
Radiology 2004;232(2):3738.
63. Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence
estimation. Radiology 2007;243(1):14857.
64. Broome DR, Girguis MS, Baron PW, et al. Gadodiamide-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis:
why radiologists should be concerned. Am
J Roentgenol 2007;188(2):58692.
65. Israel GM, Hindman N, Hecht E, et al. The use of
opposed-phase chemical shift MRI in the diagnosis
of renal angiomyolipomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol
2005;184(6):186872.
66. Zhang J, Israel GM, Krinsky GA, et al. Masses and
pseudomasses of the kidney: imaging spectrum on
MR. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28(5):58895.
67. Semelka RC, Hricak H, Stevens SK, et al. Combined gadolinium-enhanced and fat-saturation MR
imaging of renal masses. Radiology 1991;178(3):
8039.
68. Heiss SG, Shifrin RY, Sommer FG. Contrastenhanced three-dimensional fast spoiled gradient-echo renal MR imaging: evaluation of vascular
and nonvascular disease. Radiographics 2000;
20(5):134152 [discussion: 13534].
69. Eilenberg SS, Lee JK, Brown J, et al. Renal
masses: evaluation with gradient-echo Gd-DTPAenhanced dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1990;
176(2):3338.
70. Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Kroeker MA, et al. Renal
lesions: controlled comparison between CT and
1.5-T MR imaging with nonenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced fat-suppressed spin-echo and
breath-hold FLASH techniques. Radiology 1992;
182(2):42530.
71. Bosniak MA, Rofsky NM. Problems in the detection
and characterization of small renal masses. Radiology 1996;198(3):63841.
72. Scialpi M, Di Maggio A, Midiri M, et al. Small renal

masses: assessment of lesion characterization and
vascularity on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR
imaging with fat suppression. AJR Am J Roentgenol
2000;175(3):7517.
73. Fein AB, Lee JK, Balfe DM, et al. Diagnosis and
staging of renal cell carcinoma: a comparison of
MR imaging and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;
148(4):74953.
74. John G, Semelka RC, Burdeny DA, et al. Renal cell
cancer: incidence of hemorrhage on MR images in
patients with chronic renal insufficiency. J Magn
Reson Imaging 1997;7(1):15760.
75. Outwater EK, Bhatia M, Siegelman ES, et al. Lipid
in renal clear cell carcinoma: detection on opposed-phase gradient-echo MR images. Radiology
1997;205(1):1037.
76. Outwater EK, Blasbalg R, Siegelman ES, et al.
Detection of lipid in abdominal tissues with
opposed-phase gradient-echo images at 1.5 T:
techniques and diagnostic importance. Radiographics 1998;18(6):146580.
77. Bosniak MA. Problems in the radiologic diagnosis
of renal parenchymal tumors. Urol Clin North Am
1993;20:21730.
78. Ho VB, Allen SF, Hood MN, et al. Renal masses:
quantitative assessment of enhancement with
dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 2002;224(3):
695700.
79. Rofsky NM, Bosniak MA. MR imaging in the evaluation of small (%3.0 cm) renal masses. Magn
Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1997;5:6781.
80. Pedrosa I, Chou MT, Ngo L, et al. MR classification
of renal masses with pathological correlation. Eur
Radiol 2008;18(2):36575.
81. Israel GM, Hindman N, Bosniak MA. Evaluation of
cystic renal masses: comparison of CT and MR
imaging by using the Bosniak classification system.
Radiology 2004;231(2):36571.
82. Gupta RK, Sinha U, Cloughesy TF, et al. Inverse
correlation between choline magnetic resonance
spectroscopy signal intensity and the apparent diffusion coefficient in human glioma. Magn Reson
Med 1999;41:27.
83. Yang D, Korogi Y, Sugahara T, et al. Cerebral gliomas: prospective comparison of multivoxel 2D
chemical-shift imaging proton MR spectroscopy,
echoplanar perfusion and diffusion-weighted MRI.
Neuroradiology 2002;44:65666.
84. Lam WW, Poon WS, Metreweli C. Diffusion MR
imaging in glioma: does it have any role in the
pre-operation determination of grading of glioma?
Clin Radiol 2002;57:21925.
85. Lai PH, Ho JT, Chen WL, et al. Brain abscess and
necrotic brain tumor: discrimination with proton
MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:136977.
603
604
Bach & Zhang

86. Murtz P, Flacke S, Traber F, et al. Abdomen: diffusion-weighted MR imaging with pulse-triggered
single-shot sequences. Radiology 2002;224:
25864.
87. Yoshikawa T, Kawamitsu H, Mitchell DG, et al. ADC
measurement of abdominal organs and lesions using parallel imaging technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:152130.
88. Yamada I, Aung W, Himeno Y, et al. Diffusion
coefficients in abdominal organs and hepatic
lesions: evaluation with intravoxel incoherent motion echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 1999;
210:61723.
89. Namimoto T, Yamashita Y, Sumi S, et al. Focal liver
masses: characterization with diffusion-weighted
echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 1997;204:
73944.
90. Ichikawa T, Haradome H, Hachiya J, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging with a single-shot echoplanar sequence: detection and characterization of
focal hepatic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;
170:397402.
91. Taouli B, Vilgrain V, Dumont E, et al. Evaluation of
liver diffusion isotropy and characterization of focal
hepatic lesions with two single-shot echo-planar
MR imaging sequences: prospective study in 66
patients. Radiology 2003;226:718.
92. Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, et al. Diffusionweighted single-shot echoplanar MR imaging for
liver disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:
3938.
93. Ichikawa T, Haradome H, Hachiya J, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging with single-shot echoplanar imaging in the upper abdomen: preliminary
clinical experience in 61 patients. Abdom Imaging
1999;24:45661.
94. Namimoto T, Yamashita Y, Mitsuzaki K, et al.
Measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient
in diffuse renal disease by diffusion-weighted
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
echo-planar MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging

1999;9:8327.
Muller MF, Prasad PV, Bimmler D, et al. Functional
imaging of the kidney by means of measurement
of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology
1994;193:7115.
Toyoshima S, Noguchi K, Seto H, et al. Functional
evaluation of hydronephrosis by diffusion-weighted
MR imaging. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and split glomerular filtration rate.
Acta Radiol 2000;41:6426.
Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Oyen RH, et al. Diffusionweighted MR imaging of kidneys in healthy volunteers and patients with parenchymal diseases: initial
experience. Radiology 2005;235:9117.
Thoeny HC, Zumstein D, Simon-Zoula S, et al.
Functional evaluation of transplanted kidneys with
diffusion-weighted and BOLD MR imaging: initial
experience. Radiology 2006;241:81221.
Cova M, Squillaci E, Stacul F, et al. Diffusionweighted MRI in the evaluation of renal lesions: preliminary results. Br J Radiol 2004;77:8517.
Chan JH, Tsui EY, Luk SH, et al. MR diffusionweighted imaging of kidney: differentiation
between hydronephrosis and pyonephrosis. Clin
Imaging 2001;25:1103.
Zhang J, Tehrani Y, Wang L, et al. Renal masses:
characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaginga preliminary experience. Radiology 2008;
247(2):45864.
Studer UE, Scherz S, Scheidegger J, et al.
Enlargement of regional lymph nodes in renal cell
carcinoma is often not due to metastases. J Urol
1990;144(2 Pt 1):2435.
Hilton S. Imaging of renal cell carcinoma. Semin
Oncol 2000;27(2):1509.
Chae EJ, Kim JK, Kim SH, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: analysis of postoperative recurrence patterns. Radiology 2005;234(1):18996.
Molecular Imaging
of Renal Cell Carcinoma
Rodolfo Perini, MD, Daniel Pryma, MD, Chaitanya Divgi, MD*
KEYWORDS
Molecular imaging PET Cancer phenotype
IMAGING OF RENAL MASSES

The average size of detected renal masses, which
now usually are detected serendipitously, has
decreased considerably in the past decade.13
This decrease in size has increased the need for
characterization of the masses detected, because
management is heavily influenced by the nature of
the lesion.3 Because most lesions are detected
and then evaluated using structural imaging methodologies, particularly ultrasound, CT, and MRI,
attempts have been made to use these modalities
to characterize renal masses.46 All these techniques seem to be useful, especially in centers
with experience. All these modalities, however,
including newer techniques such as dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and measurement of tumor
vascularity, are in essence structural or at best
functional imaging techniques that seek to characterize renal masses based on radiodensity or
blood flow.7
POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY

Positron emission tomography (PET) has
improved tremendously the ability to characterize
the cancer phenotype. [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose
(FDG) is an excellent surrogate for glucose use,
which is increased in most cancers. Renal excretion of FDG limits its usefulness in the detection
of primary tumors. It is, however, an excellent
agent for staging and for detection of metastases.
Tumor cells constitutively use glucose (the
Warburg effect)8 and hence demonstrate greater
FDG uptake than normal cells, appearing as areas
of increased FDG accumulation.9
PET is a nuclear medicine technique that relies
on the detection of energy emitted from radiotracers exogenously administered to patients.
Tracers are substances that, in very low concentrations, are able to evaluate biologic functions
without disturbing the milieu, a principle pioneered
by Hevesy10 in 1935.
PET images result from the detection of coincident 511-keV gamma rays originating from
the annihilation of the emitted positron and a neighboring electron. These gamma rays are detected
by an array of scintillation crystals, localizing the
event in a linear trajectory within the patient.
PET is the most sensitive imaging tool used
routinely in clinical practice, with sensitivity in the
order of picomolar concentrations. Tracer uptake
is indicated by the standardized uptake value,
a measure of mean tissue tracer concentration
relative to the mean whole body tracer
concentration.11
PET has revolutionized the ability to study tumor
biology. PET, using different radiotracers, can
evaluate cellular metabolism, hypoxia, and the
Division of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, University of
Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19105, USA
E-mail address: chaitanya.divgi@uphs.upenn.edu (C. Divgi).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 605611
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.015
The recent identification of agents that have

significantly influenced the therapy of clear cell
renal carcinoma and the decreasing size of renal
masses, usually detected serendipitously, have
led to a resurgence in imaging for this condition.
Although structural methods continue to be
used routinely for identification of renal masses,
functional and molecular techniques are showing
considerable promise in their ability to characterize unique features of the renal cancer
phenotype. This article discusses the evolving
role of molecular imaging in the evaluation of
renal cancer, including current and future
applications.
606
Perini et al
expression of cell surface markers. PET cannot
distinguish between various positron-emitting
radioisotopes, and therefore only one PET tracer
can be studied at a given time. Most positronemitting radioisotopes have short half-lives, however, and thus serial studies are feasible.
Because PET essentially identifies molecular
features of cellular processes, it can be thought of
as the pre-eminent molecular imaging modality.
An overview of PET imaging of renal cancer follows.
GLUCOSE METABOLISM
FDG is the most frequently used PET radiotracer
and is the only one approved by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for oncologic PET imaging.12 Like glucose, FDG is transported into cells
by glucose transporters and is phosphorylated
by hexokinase. It is not metabolized further, however, and thus it accumulates inside cells. Tumor
cells use glucose constitutively, as described by
Warburg,8 and hence demonstrate greater FDG
uptake, appearing as areas of increased FDG
accumulation.
FDG-PET is being used increasingly in staging
and response assessment in a variety of cancers,
such as lung, breast, lymphoma, melanoma, and
neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract.12,13 Its role
in renal cancer is still controversial, however.14,15
FDG-PET reportedly has limited use in the
primary detection and staging of renal cell carcinoma. Because FDG is excreted primarily through
the urine, foci of increased uptake may be
mistaken as activity in the collecting system.
Hydration and diuretics potentially can be used
to avoid such confounding factors, as is done in
bladder cancer. In addition, hybrid imaging with
PET/CT scanners also has the potential to improve
the sensitivity of FDG-PET in renal tumors from the
levels initially reported.
Bachor and colleagues16 initially described
FDG-PET as having an overall sensitivity of 77%
in detecting the primary tumor. From a group of
26 patients who had pathologically proven renal
cell carcinomas, 20 were identified by FDG-PET;
the diagnostic accuracy depended on the degree
of tumor differentiation. Most importantly, FDGPET proved to be a very accurate method for
lymph node staging, with no false negatives in
this study.
Goldberg and colleagues17 used FDG-PET to
study patients who had renal tumors and indeterminate renal cysts. The authors found that in 9 of
10 patients FDG-PET depicted solid neoplasms
accurately. Except for one patient who had a renal
cyst and a 4-mm papillary neoplasm, all benign
lesions also were classified as such by FDG-PET.
Aide and colleagues18 prospectively evaluated

the ability of FDG-PET to characterize renal
cancers and to detect distant metastasis in treatment-nave and postnephrectomy patients. FDGPET was less accurate than CT in imaging the
primary tumors but had a greater sensitivity in
detecting metastatic disease.
In a study by Kang and colleagues,19 66 patients
who had known or suspected renal cancer
were analyzed retrospectively with a total of 90
FDG-PET scans. In this study, FDG-PET was
less sensitive than CT in detecting the primary
tumors and metastatic disease. (One limitation of
this study, however, is that the PET images were
interpreted without attenuation correction; the
lack of correction limits the sensitivity of any tomographic emission imaging method).
Ramdave and colleagues20 demonstrated comparable accuracy for FDG-PET and CT in evaluating renal masses. FDG-PET was more accurate in
detecting local recurrence and metastatic disease,
directly affecting the treatment in 40% of the
patients. Fig. 1 shows a clear cell renal cell
carcinoma.
ACETATE METABOLISM
Acetate is taken up by cells, converted into
acetyl-coenzyme A in the mitochondria, and then
Fig. 1. FDG-PET of a patient who has renal cell carcinoma. Although the tumor can be visualized clearly
(arrow), the intensity of uptake is much less than in
the collecting system in the same kidney.
Molecular Imaging of Renal Cell Carcinoma

metabolized in the citric acid cycle and cleared in
the form of CO2. Acetate imaging, in the form of
carbon-11 (C-11)-acetate PET, has been used
mostly to evaluate myocardial oxidative metabolism.21 C-11-acetate PET also was shown to be
an accurate noninvasive technique for evaluating
physiologic renal oxidative metabolism in animals,
correlating with O2 consumption and tubular
sodium reabsorption.22
In tumor imaging, C-11-acetate has been studied most in prostate cancer, for early differentiation between benign and malignant prostate
lesions and for detecting recurrence at low levels
of prostate-specific antigen.23 It has a limited
role in the characterization of small renal masses.
Shriki and colleagues24 first reported C-11-acetate
uptake in a patient who had renal oncocytoma. In
a recent study, however, Kotzerke and colleagues25 found no evidence of increased uptake
of C-11-acetate in patients who had renal
carcinoma.
OTHER METABOLIC TRACERS

Attempts have been made to characterize tumors
using a variety of other tracers. Two are mentioned
briefly here. Radioactive thymidine, long used to
characterize cellular proliferation in vivo, has
been studied with C-11 and, increasingly, with
fluorine-18.26,27 A concordance between thymidine uptake as assessed by PET and measures
of cellular proliferation including Ki-67 immunohistochemistry has been demonstrated clearly.26,27
Radioactive choline also has been studied as
a PET agent, primarily in prostate cancer.28 One
of the attractive features of using choline as
a radiotracer is that elevated choline content in
tumor also is detectable by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy,29 and thus the relationship
between endogenous and exogenous choline
can be studied by a combination of magnetic
resonance spectroscopy and PET.
TUMOR-ASSOCIATED ANTIGENS
Antigenic features of tumors are studied in both
hematologic and solid neoplasms to identify
features of the cancer phenotype. In solid tumors
this study usually is performed by immunohistochemistry.30 Increasingly, the standardization of
such approaches is seen as critical to their rational
use in treatment decision making.31 Immunohistochemistry is a snap-shot: it depicts the antigenic
distribution in a portion of a single tumor, and
only in tissue accessible to biopsy. It therefore is
useful but is not always representative of the antigenic composition of all tumors in the patient.
Imaging of antigenic distribution has several

advantages: it can evaluate distribution throughout the body and at various times during the
course of the disease and is relatively noninvasive
(especially compared with a biopsy). Such imaging
has been performed using radioactive isotopes
labeled to intact antibodies; the process has
been termed radioimmunodetection.32 The limitation thus far has been the lack of suitable imaging tools. Single-photon gamma camera imaging
has inherent limitations of sensitivity and specificity, and the only FDA-approved agent currently
used in the evaluation of any cancer is an
indium-111labeled murine antibody that recognizes the prostate-specific membrane antigen.
Imaging with this antibody is indicated for
restaging patients.33
Antibody PET (immunoPET) has the exquisite
sensitivity of PET combined with the specificity of
antibody targeting. Fluorine-18 (F-18) is the positron emitter most commonly used in PET. It has
a half-life of less than 2 hours, precluding imaging
at delayed time points (most antibodies accumulate slowly in solid tumors). The radiochemistry of
stable conjugation of F-18 to proteins also is difficult and nonstandardized. Iodine-124 (I-124),
a positron-emitting radioisotope of iodine with
a half-life of 4 days,34 addresses both limitations:
iodination of proteins is standardized, and iodinated antibodies have been used successfully
in humans, especially with non-internalizing
proteins.35
IODINE-LABELED cG250
cG250 is an antibody that is being evaluated as
a therapeutic agent in clear cell kidney cancer.
The antibody has been studied extensively in
clear cell renal cancer as a murine antibody35,36
and as a chimeric (Fv-grafted human IgG1) antibody.3537 The antibody had exquisite specificity
for clear cell renal cancer, and single-photon imaging with [131I]iodine demonstrated that targeting to both primary and metastatic tumor was
excellent.3537
The excellent and invariable targeting of radioiodinated cG250 to clear cell renal cancer led the
authors to postulate that the antibody could be
used to identify clear cell renal cancer. Additionally, the availability of I-124 and the ability to attach
it to cG250 raised the prospect of tumor characterization with PET.
As stated earlier,13 the demographics of renal
cancer have changed: an increasing proportion
of patients with renal masses now are identified
serendipitously, with a consequent decrease in
the proportion of patients who have the clear cell
607
608
Perini et al
Fig. 2. ImmunoPET with [124I]-cG250
(A) in a patient who has clear cell renal
cancer (uptake in the tumor is clearly
evident, as indicated by the arrow) and
(B) in a patient who has angiomyolipoma
(there is no uptake in the tumor).
cancer phenotype.38 The authors proposed a clinical trial to test the hypothesis that antibody PET
with [124I]-cG250 would detect clear cell renal
cancer with at least 90% accuracy. The Ludwig
Institute for Cancer Research sponsored the trial,
which was conducted solely at the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center under an
FDA-approved Investigational New Drug application. The demographics at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center39 led the authors to anticipate
a total accrual of 54 patients with an early analysis
planned after 15 PET-positive patients.
Patients who had renal masses scheduled for
surgical removal were entered into the study.
Fig. 3. ImmunoPET with [124I]-cG250.
(A) Transaxial CT, (B) transaxial [124I]cG250 PET, (C) transaxial fused PET-CT,
and (D) and coronal fused PET-CT images
of a 54-year-old man with right upper
pole clear cell renal cancer (arrows).
Images were acquired 5 days after intravenous infusion of 4 mCi 124I/10 mg
cG250 and immediately before right
upper pole partial nephrectomy.
Fig. 4. (A) Low-power digital autoradiograph from the clear cell renal cancer seen in Fig. 2. The circled area in
(A) is shown at high power as digital autoradiograph in (B) and as contiguous slice immunohistochemistry stained
with anti-CA-9 antibody in (C).
Surgery was scheduled for approximately a week

after antibody infusion, and PET/CT was
performed before and on the day of surgery.
PET/CT using [124I]-cG250 was feasible even
a week after radio-antibody infusion. All patients
tolerated the infusion without acute adverse
events, and none developed any side effects or
an immune response to the xenogeneic protein.
Fifteen of 16 patients who had clear cell renal cancer had a positive PET; the one patient who did not
had necrotic tumor. All nine patients who had renal
masses of a different histology had no antibody
accumulation in the tumors. The positive predictive accuracy thus was 100%, and the specificity
also was 100%.40 Figs. 24 show PET/CT studies
using [124I]-cG250.
The results after 15 PET-positive patients were
encouraging enough to lead to the initiation of
a multicenter trial, sponsored and conducted by
Wilex AG, in a larger group of patients. This study
is adequately powered to determine the utility of
[124I]-cG250 antibody PET in patients who have
renal masses.
SUMMARY
Molecular imaging using PET permits in vivo
characterization of metabolic and cellular characteristics of cancers. The evaluation of renal cancer
using molecular imaging techniques has increased
significantly because of the need to characterize
the small renal masses that now are detected

and because of the number of promising therapies
that are becoming available for renal cancer. The
metabolic characteristics of renal cancer can be
studied with FDG, particularly in the evaluation of
patients who have metastatic cancer. Newer
methods using radiolabeled tumor-targeting
moieties are being studied, and immunoPET of
renal cancer with [124I]-cG250 has shown great
promise in phenotypic characterization using
PET. This characterization may lead to tools for
stratifying patients who have cancer and thus to
appropriate patient management.
REFERENCES
1. Israel GM, Bosniak MA. How I do it: evaluating renal
masses. Radiology 2005;236(2):44150.
2. Bosniak MA, Rofsky NM. Problems in the detection
and characterization of small renal masses. Radiology 1996;198(3):63841.
3. Raj GV, Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting 12-year probability of
metastatic renal cancer. J Urol 2008;179(6):
214651 [discussion 2151].
4. Raj GV, Bach AM, Iasonos A, et al. Predicting the
histology of renal masses using preoperative Doppler ultrasonography. J Urol 2007;177(1):538.
5. Zhang J, Tehrani YM, Wang L, et al. Renal masses:
characterization
with
diffusion-weighted
MR
609
Perini et al
610
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
imaginga preliminary experience. Radiology

2008;247(2):45864.
Zhang J, Lefkowitz RA, Ishill NM, et al. Solid renal
cortical tumors: differentiation with CT. Radiology
2007;244(2):494504.
Prasad SR, Dalrymple NC, Surabhi VR. Crosssectional imaging evaluation of renal masses. Radiol
Clin North Am 2008;46(1):95111, vi-vii.
Warburg O, Posener K, Negelein E. Ueber den Stoffwechsel der Tumoren. Biochem Z 1924;152:31944.
Kim JW, Dang CV. Cancers molecular sweet tooth and
the Warburg effect. Cancer Res 2006;66(18):892730.
Hevesy G. Some applications of isotopic indicators.
Les Prix Nobel en 194044. Stockholm (Sweden):
Norstedt & Soener; 1946.
Weber WA, Schwaiger M, Avril N. Quantitative
assessment of tumor metabolism using FDG-PET
imaging. Nucl Med Biol 2000;27(7):6837.
Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl
J Med 2006;354(5):496507.
Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of
positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in
Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(5):5718.
Bouchelouche K, Oehr P. Positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computerized tomography of urological malignancies: an
update review. J Urol 2008;179(1):3445.
Powles T, Murray I, Brock C, et al. Molecular positron
emission tomography and PET/CT imaging in urological malignancies. Eur Urol 2007;51(6):151120
[discussion 15201].
Bachor R, Kotzerke J, Gottfried HW, et al. [Positron
emission tomography in diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma] [German]. Der Urologe Ausg A 1996;35(2):
14650.
Goldberg MA, Mayo-Smith WW, Papanicolaou N, et al.
FDG PETcharacterization of renal masses: preliminary
experience. Clin Radiol 1997;52(7):5105.
Aide N, Cappele O, Bottet P, et al. Efficiency of
[(18)F]FDG PET in characterising renal cancer and
detecting distant metastases: a comparison with CT.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(9):123645.
Kang DE, White RL, Zuger JH, et al. Clinical use of
fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography for detection of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol
2004;171(5):18069.
Ramdave S, Thomas GW, Berlangieri SU, et al.
Clinical role of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron
emission tomography for detection and management of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001;166(3):
82530.
Choi Y, Huang SC, Hawkins RA, et al. A refined
method for quantification of myocardial oxygen
consumption rate using mean transit time with
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
carbon-11-acetate and dynamic PET. J Nucl Med

1993;34(11):203843.
Juillard L, Lemoine S, Janier MF, et al. Validation of
renal oxidative metabolism measurement by positron-emission tomography. Hypertension 2007;
50(1):2427.
Soloviev D, Fini A, Chierichetti F, et al. PET imaging
with (11)C-acetate in prostate cancer: a biochemical,
radiochemical and clinical perspective. Eur J Nucl
Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(5):9429.
Shriki J, Murthy V, Brown J. Renal oncocytoma on
1-11C acetate positron emission tomography: case
report and literature review. Mol Imaging Biol 2006;
8(4):20811.
Kotzerke J, Linne C, Meinhardt M, et al. [1(11)C]acetate uptake is not increased in renal cell
carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;
34(6):8848.
Shields AF. Positron emission tomography measurement of tumor metabolism and growth: its expanding role in oncology. Mol Imaging Biol 2006;8(3):
14150.
Buck AK, Bommer M, Stilgenbauer S, et al. Molecular imaging of proliferation in malignant lymphoma.
Cancer Res 2006;66(22):1105561.
Takahashi N, Inoue T, Lee J, et al. The roles of PET
and PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of
prostate cancer. Oncology 2007;72(3-4):22633.
Glunde K, Jacobs MA, Bhujwalla ZM. Choline
metabolism in cancer: implications for diagnosis
and therapy. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2006;6(6):8219.
Skinnider BF, Amin MB. An immunohistochemical
approach to the differential diagnosis of renal
tumors. Semin Diagn Pathol 2005;22(1):5168.
Carlson RW, Moench SJ, Hammond ME, et al. HER2
testing in breast cancer: NCCN Task Force report
and recommendations. J Natl Compr Canc Netw
2006;4(Suppl 3):S122 [quiz S234].
Lawrentschuk N, Davis ID, Bolton DM, et al. Positron
emission tomography (PET), immuno-PET and radioimmunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: a developing
diagnostic and therapeutic relationship. BJU Int
2006;97(5):91622.
Capromab pendetide: product approval iInformation - licensing action. Available at: http://www.fda.
gov/cder/biologics/products/capcyt102896.htm. Accessed May 18, 2008.
Iodine-124. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Iodine-124. Accessed May 18, 2008.
Oosterwijk E, Divgi C, Bander NH. Active and
passive immunotherapy: vaccines and antibodies.
BJU Int 2007;99(5 Pt B):13014.
Oosterwijk E, Divgi CR, Brouwers A, et al. Monoclonal antibody-based therapy for renal cell carcinoma.
Urol Clin North Am 2003;30(3):62331.
Divgi CR, ODonoghue JA, Welt S, et al. Phase I
clinical trial with fractionated radioimmunotherapy

using 131I-labeled chimeric G250 in metastatic
renal cancer. J Nucl Med 2004;45(8):141221.
38. Huang WC, Kagiwada MA, Russo P. Surgery insight:
advances in techniques for open partial nephrectomy. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2007;4(8):44450.
39. Sorbellini M, Kattan MW, Snyder ME, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence
for patients with conventional clear cell renal cell

carcinoma. J Urol 2005;173(1):4851.
40. Divgi CR, Pandit-Taskar N, Jungbluth AA, et al. Preoperative characterisation of clear-cell renal carcinoma
using iodine-124-labelled antibody chimeric G250
(124I-cG250) and PET in patients with renal masses:
a phase I trial. Lancet Oncol 2007;8(4):30410.
611
Prognostic Models
and Algorithms in Renal
Cell Carcinoma
Brian R. Lane, MD, PhDa, Michael W. Kattan, PhDb,*
KEYWORDS
Renal cell carcinoma Nomogram Prognostic algorithms
receptor, leading to the growth of new blood

vessels (angiogenesis) that supply oxygen and
nutrients to the growing cancer. These agents
have been shown to result in stabilization or a decrease in tumor burden in a majority of patients.
They also have been shown to lengthen the time
to disease progression when compared with
placebo or interferon treatment.58 Temsirolimus,
an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin,
is a third agent recently approved by the Food and
Drug Administration that has been evaluated in
poor-risk patients who have metastatic RCC.
When administered intravenously to this patient
subgroup, temsirolimus extended recurrencefree and overall survival when compared with
interferon in a randomized, controlled trial.9
Each of the currently available treatments, as
well as those currently in clinical trials, is costly
and is associated with side effects. Therefore, it
is important to identify patients who have the
greatest likelihood of benefiting from such treatments. Determination of the risk of recurrence in
patients without evidence of metastasis has been
based on several predictive models that integrate
known clinical risk factors for disease recurrence.
More recent studies suggest that the addition of
molecular markers to clinical risk factors may
improve the predictive ability of RCC diseaserecurrence models.10 Prediction of disease progression or death from disease also has been
investigated for use in counseling patients who
have metastatic RCC and for guiding clinical decision making. This article describes the various
a
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A100, Cleveland, OH 44195,
USA
b
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Wb-4, Cleveland, OH
44195, USA
E-mail address: kattanm@ccf.org (M.W. Kattan).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 613625

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.003
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) responds minimally to

conventional chemotherapy and remains the most
lethal of the common genitourinary cancers.1 Cancer-specific survival correlates strongly with tumor
stage, although several other factors have been
shown to be independent predictive factors of disease recurrence. Long-term survival exceeds 90%
in patients who have RCC that is contained within
the kidney (pathologic stage T1) but is less than
5% in patients who have metastatic RCC.
Although surgical treatment is curative for localized disease, 25% of patients present with locally
advanced or disseminated disease, and disease
recurs systemically in 20% to 30% of patients
who have localized disease at presentation.1
Only a small percentage of patients respond to
interleukin-2 or interferon-based immunotherapy,
and these treatments can be associated with considerable toxicity.2 Unfortunately, the incidence of
all stages of RCC continues to increase by about
2.5% per year, and RCC was responsible for
more than 12,800 cancer-related deaths in the
United States in 2007.3,4 The pressing need for
effective systemic therapies has led to the development of several novel treatments for metastatic
RCC that are now available for clinical use. Two
oral, small molecular inhibitors of the receptor for
vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have
been approved recently by the Food and Drug
Administration for the treatment of advanced
RCC. Sunitinib (Sutent) and sorafenib (Nexavar)
exert their anti-cancer effects primarily by blocking
pathways induced by the binding of VEGF to VEGF
614
Lane & Kattan

predictive factors and algorithms for patients who
have localized and metastatic RCC.
TNM STAGING SYSTEM
Box 1
Prognostic factors for RCC
Anatomic
Tumor size
Until 1990, Robsons modification of the staging

system proposed by Flocks and Kadesky
provided the most reliable prognostic information
for clinicians caring for patients who had RCC.11
The system most commonly used currently is the
TNM staging system of the International Union
Against Cancer and the American Joint Committee
on Cancer. Tumor stage remains the single best
prognostic indicator for RCC, although it may be
viewed better as an algorithm that combines
several factors, each of which provides information about outcome. Two studies have confirmed
that the 2002 modification of this system has
better prognostic ability than the previous 1997
staging system,12,13 and a new staging system
will become available soon. Modifications in the
2002 staging system included subclassification
of pT1 tumors as pT1a (< 4 cm) and pT1b
(47 cm), grouping extension into the renal vein
and inferior vena cava below the diaphragm as
T3b, and re-classifying involvement of the inferior
vena cava above the diaphragm or invasion of
the inferior vena cava wall as T3c. Using the
2002 staging system, cancer-specific survival at
5 years ranged from 97% for pT1a to 20% for
pT4.12 Lymph node metastases portend a poor
prognosis, with cancer-specific survival rates of
5% to 30% at 5 years and 0% to 5% at 10 years.11
Distant metastases to lung, bone, brain, or other
organs are associated with survival rates of 50%,
5% to 30%, and 0% to 5% at 1, 5, and 10 years,
respectively.11
PROGNOSTIC FACTORS
A criticism of staging systems is that they tend to
provide limited prognostic ability, in part because
there may be significant heterogeneity among
patients in each classification, and often the
systems do not take into account a number of
significant predictive factors.14 This criticism has
led investigators to explore various prognostic
factors, either alone or in combination with the
TNM staging system and/or other factors
(Box 1). Patients who present with either local or
systemic symptoms have a worse prognosis than
patients who have incidentally detected
tumors.1518 Moreover, the presence of symptoms
of cachexia, including weight loss, anorexia, or
malaise, or a reduction in overall health (Karnofsky
scale or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
[ECOG] performance status)19 at diagnosis
Extension into perinephric or renal sinus fat

Adrenal involvement (direct or metastatic)
Venous involvement
Lymph node metastases
Distant metastases
Metastatic burden of disease
Clinical
Performance status (Karnofsky, ECOG)
Localized symptoms
Systemic symptoms (cachexia, > 10-pound
weight loss)
Thrombocytosis
Anemia
Hypercalcemia
Elevated alkaline phosphatase
Elevated C-reactive protein
Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate
Histologic
Nuclear grade
Histologic subtype
Presence of sarcomatoid features
Presence of histologic necrosis
Vascular invasion
Collecting system invasion
Molecular
Hypoxia-inducible factors: CA-IX, CA-XII,
CXCR3, CXCR4, HIF, IGF-1, VEGF, VEGFRs
Co-stimulatory molecules: B7-H1, B7-H3 (tumor
cell/vascular), B7-H4, PD-1
Cell cycle regulators: p53, Bcl-2, PTEN, Cyclin A,
p27, Skp2
Adhesion molecules: EpCAM/KSA, EMA, E-Cad,
alpha-catenin, Cad-6
Other factors: Ki-67, XIAP, Survivin, EphA2,
Smac/DIABLO, PCNA, Caveolin-1, AR, CD44,
Annexin II, Gelsolin, Vimentin, CA-125), aberrant DNA methylation, Na-K ATPase a1 subunit,
vitamin D receptor, retinoid X receptor
Data from Lane BR, Kattan MW. Predicting outcomes
in renal cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Urol 2005;15:
28997.
Prognostic Models and Algorithms

confers a poor prognosis in both localized and metastatic RCC.17,18,2024 Other prognostic factors in
patients who have metastatic RCC include the
number of metastases and site of metastases
(Table 1): patients who have a solitary lung
metastasis account for almost all the complete
remissions observed in clinical trials.11 Several
laboratory values, including anemia (hemoglobin
< 10 g/dL for females or < 12 g/dL for males),
thrombocytosis, hypercalcemia, elevated alkaline
phosphatase, elevated C-reactive protein, and
erythrocyte sedimentation rate less than 30 mm/h,
also portend poorer outcomes in patients who
have RCC.2529
HISTOLOGIC RENAL CELL CARCINOMA SUBTYPES

RCC is known to be a heterogeneous malignancy
with several subtypes that exhibit distinct clinical
and pathologic features.30,31 Several histologic
subtypes of RCC have been described, including
conventional clear cell RCC (cRCC), papillary
RCC, and chromophobe RCC. Papillary RCC and
chromophobe RCC account for about 15% to
25% of RCC, and patients who have these
subtypes generally have a better long-term
disease-free survival than those who have
cRCC.3034 Other rarer subtypes (collecting duct,
medullary cell, and unclassified RCC) often display
more aggressive clinical behavior. Consistent clinical behavior is not observed even within the major
subtypes, however, suggesting that genetic heterogeneity exists within each subtype. The unique
molecular defects that are pathogenic for each
subtype are becoming defined, allowing targeted
molecular approaches to be developed and tested
and moving RCC to the forefront of molecular therapeutics.35 For example, the von Hippel-Lindau
(VHL) gene on chromosome 3p25 has been implicated in von Hippel-Lindau disease, a condition in
which patients often develop multiple, bilateral
cRCC. Mutations in the VHL gene or hypermethylation of the VHL gene promoter region have been
identified in 57% to 70% of patients who have
sporadic RCC.36 A recent study, however, indicates that the presence of a detectable VHL mutation does not affect survival in patients who have
localized cRCC.37 Dysregulation of hypoxiainducible factors by alterations in VHL creates
a vasculogenic environment favoring tumor
growth. New agents targeting several signaling
pathways that derive directly or indirectly from
hypoxia-inducible factors, including VEGF, platelet-derived growth factor, epidermal growth factor
receptor, and mammalian target of rapamycin,
have proven effective in phase II and phase III clinical trials.59 Genes linked to the development of
RCC also have been identified in individuals who

have hereditary papillary RCC syndrome, BirtHogg-Dube syndrome, and hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome.35 Only 4% of patients
who have RCC develop the disease within the
context of these familial syndromes, however,
suggesting that there are many other genes yet
to be implicated in the pathogenesis of RCC.
More recently, a number of molecular factors
have been found to serve as independent prognostic factors for RCC.
OTHER PATHOLOGIC FACTORS

Pathologic factors, including Fuhrman nuclear
grade38,39 and the presence of sarcomatoid
features,4042 provide prognostic information in
patients who have localized RCC. Histologic tumor
necrosis has been shown to be a negative prognostic indicator,39,4345 as has collecting system
invasion in low-stage lesions.46,47 Although the
presence of multiple renal tumors may complicate
surgical management, multifocality has been demonstrated to confer either a neutral or positive
influence on outcomes.4853 In addition, although
involvement of the renal vein and inferior vena
cava has a negative influence on prognosis, the
impact of microvascular invasion on prognosis
remains controversial.5458
PREOPERATIVE NOMOGRAMS FOR SUSPECTED

RENAL MALIGNANCY
The authors recently have constructed a nomogram to predict the likelihood of benign or malignant pathology in patients who have a single
enhancing renal neoplasm amenable to partial
nephrectomy (Fig. 1).59,60 Based on pathologic
data obtained during 862 partial nephrectomies,
20% of suspected renal malignancies had benign
histology. The predicted probability of benign disease ranged from 5% to 50% based on readily
identifiable preoperative factors (tumor size,
patient age and gender, symptoms at presentation, and smoking history). This information may
be particularly applicable when active surveillance or tumor ablation is being considered for
smaller tumors in more infirm patients. Several
additional preoperative nomograms predicting recurrence-free survival have been developed,6062
but none performs as well as algorithms that
incorporate data obtained during nephrectomy.63
The authors believe that estimation of this end
point is more useful in the postoperative setting,
when this information might affect subsequent
decision making (surveillance protocol, adjuvant
treatment).
615
616
Reference
Motzer 1999
Mekhail 2005
Motzer 2004
Boumerhi 2003
Escudier 2007
Choueiri 2007
N
Previous treatment
670
None
353
None
137
Immunotherapy and
other therapies
92
85
Immunotherapy and
other therapies
85
300
Immunotherapy
93
120
VEGF-targeted
therapy
100
94
12.6
100
13.8a
Conventional
NA
histology (%)
Prior nephrectomy (%)
65
Median survival
10
(months)
Associated with adverse outcome?
Less than 1 to 2 years
Yes
from nephrectomy
or diagnosis to
metastasis
Hemoglobin below
Yes
lower limit of normal
Elevated alkaline
No
phosphatase
Abnormal corrected
Yes
calciumb
Yes
LDH more than
1.5 upper limit
of normal
Reduced performance
Yes
status
No. metastatic sites
No
Prior radiotherapy
No
Low platelet count
No
Low neutrophil count
No
85
81
14.8
74
12.7
85
16.5
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Abbreviation: NA, not available.

Data from: Escudier B, Choueiri TK, Oudard S, et al. Prognostic factors of metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of immunotherapy: new paradigm from a large phase III trial
with shark cartilage extract AE 941. J Urol 2007;178:1904.
a
Progression-free survival.
b
Corrected calcium 5 total calcium 0.707*(albumin 3.4).
Lane & Kattan
Table 1
Prognostic factors used in prognostic algorithms for patients who have metastatic RCC
Fig. 1. Preoperative nomogram predicting the odds that an enhancing renal mass amenable to partial nephrectomy is a benign or malignant tumor. Instructions for physician: Locate the patients age on the age axis according to gender. Draw a line upwards to the points axis to determine how many points toward cancer the patient
receives for his (or her) age. Repeat this process for the other axes, each time drawing straight upward to the
points axis. Sum the points achieved for each predictor, and locate this sum on the total points axis. Draw
a straight line down to find the probability that cancer will be found after partial nephrectomy. Refer to this
probability as P(C) and find the probability of the tumor being benign, which is 1-P(C). Inform the patient:
Mr. (or Mrs.) X, if we had 100 men (or women) exactly like you, we would expect to find a kidney cancer in
P(C) of these patients after partial nephrectomy. (From Lane BR, Babineau D, Kattan MW, et al. A preoperative
prognostic nomogram for solid enhancing renal tumors 7 cm or less amenable to partial nephrectomy. J Urol
2007;178:431; with permission.)
POSTOPERATIVE PROGNOSTIC ALGORITHMS

FOR LOCALIZED RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
Several groups have developed postoperative
prognostic algorithms based on clinical and pathologic features. In 2001, researchers at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center proposed a nomogram for patients who have localized clear cell,
papillary, or chromophobe RCC.15 Prognostic factors included tumor stage, tumor size, histologic
subtype, and symptoms at presentation.15 Subsequently, the same group produced a revised
nomogram for patients who had cRCC that was
based on tumor stage, tumor size, nuclear grade,
necrosis, vascular invasion, and symptoms at
presentation (Fig. 2).64 Such paper-based nomograms provide a visual aid clinicians can use
during patient counseling. Software-based nomograms (www.nomograms.org) also provide accurate prognostic information and may take even
less time to use during doctorpatient interactions.
Researchers at other institutions have proposed
two additional postoperative prognostic systems.
The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Integrated Staging System (UISS) divides patients

into five groups shown to have statistically significant differences in disease-specific survival.21
Although the UCLA group initially evaluated
many potential prognostic parameters, the UISS
is based solely on tumor stage, nuclear grade,
and ECOG performance status.21 In a subsequent
report, the UISS was modified to identify patients
who had nonmetastatic or metastatic disease at
low, intermediate, or high risk of disease progression (Table 2).65 This modified UISS has been
validated both internally and externally in larger
series of patients.65,66 One drawback of the UISS
is that it does not predict a probability of failure
for an individual patient but instead places individuals into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups,
making the information provided less meaningful
for treatment decision making.
In 2002, the group at the Mayo Clinic devised
the SSIGN score, in which patients who have
cRCC are assigned a score based on tumor stage,
tumor size, nuclear grade, and the presence of
necrosis (Table 3).43 The estimated cancerspecific survival for an individual patient at 1 to
617
618
Lane & Kattan
Fig. 2. Postoperative nomogram predicting recurrence of conventional RCC after nephrectomy. Instructions for
physician: Locate the patients tumor size on the size axis. Draw a line upwards to the points axis to determine
how many points toward recurrence the patient receives for the tumor size. Repeat this process for the other
axes, each time drawing straight upward to the points axis. Sum the points achieved for each predictor and locate
this sum on the total points axis. Draw a straight line down to find the probability that the patient will remain
free of recurrence for 5 years, assuming the patient does not die of another cause first. Inform the patient:
Mr. (or Mrs.) X, if we had 100 men (or women) exactly like you, we would expect (predicted percentage from
nomogram) to remain free of their disease 5 years following surgery, although recurrence after 5 years is still possible. (From Sorbellini M, Kattan MW, Snyder ME, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence for patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2005;173:50; with permission.)
10 years then is provided based on the total of the

SSIGN score (Table 4). The SSIGN score was
based on data from more than 1800 patients but
as of yet has not been validated internally or externally against additional datasets.
Many statistical methods can be used to evaluate predictive models.14 The concordance index
(c-index) is a measure of the predictive accuracy
of prognostic algorithms, in which the algorithm
is asked to predict which of two patients will experience clinical failure first. Comparison with the
actual outcome in a large series of patient pairs
determines the c-index. Perfect predictive accuracy yields the highest possible value of 1.0,
whereas random chance provides a baseline value
of 0.5. Although the predictive accuracy of these
algorithms improves on traditional TNM staging
and individual factors, such as nuclear grade and
ECOG status, each of the available tools has
a c-index less than 1.0, indicating room for
improvement.
Comparative evaluation of prognostic algorithms should be performed with care, because

c-indexes cannot be compared directly across
datasets. More accurate information is obtained
from head-to-head comparisons on the same validation dataset, as performed to compare the 1997
and 2002 TNM staging systems.12,13 The discriminating ability of four prognostic algorithms was
compared using an independent dataset containing more than 2400 patients.63 Calculations of
c-indexes and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals
for overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and
recurrence-free survival at 5 years consistently
revealed the Kattan RCC nomogram to be most
accurate.63 Further studies comparing each of
the prognostic models in the same datasets will
help identify the most accurate nomograms.
Calculation of the c-index addresses only the
ranking of outcomes and does not address the
absolute predictive accuracy (ie, calibration). To
examine the accuracy of a particular predicted
Table 2
Modified UCLA integrated staging system
Nonmetastatic cases
Stage
Fuhrman nuclear
grade
ECOG
performance status
Risk
Stage
Fuhrman nuclear
grade
ECOG
performance status
Risk
T1
T2
1-2
3-4
1
Low
Any
1
0
Low
Any
T4
2-4
2
1
Intermediate
Low
Any
High
3
1
Any
1
Intermediate
Metastatic cases
N2M0 or M1
N1M0
Any
T3
Any
4
1
Intermediate
1
High
Data from Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Wieder J, et al. Risk group assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to predict the natural history of patients with surgically resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002:20;4561.
probability, calibration usually is performed by

plotting predicted versus actual probabilities.
Most of the algorithms discussed in this article
have been assessed for discrimination, most commonly by a bootstrapping method.
Table 3
SSIGN score algorithm
MOLECULAR FACTORS
Feature
A large number of genes that may have prognostic

and therapeutic significance have been identified
using high-throughput technology to investigate
gene expression in RCC.6777 Several studies
demonstrated that each histologic subtype of
RCC can be differentiated by gene-expression
profiling of renal tumors.6771,7881 Correlation of
changes in gene expression with corresponding
protein expression and location can be analyzed
using immunohistochemical staining of individual
tissue samples. Construction of tissue microarrays
can facilitate the screening of a larger number of
pathologic samples, but interpretation of results
accumulated in multiple datasets can be
difficult.10,82
Many experts believe that the incorporation of
both clinical and molecular factors is likely to result
in the best prognostic tools. Proof-of-principle has
been illustrated by the group at UCLA, who
demonstrated that a clinical and molecular model
(Fig. 3) was better than standard clinical models
or a model based on molecular information
alone.10,83 The addition of expression data from
five markers, including carbonic anhydrase IX
(CA-IX), Ki67, gelsolin, vimentin, and p53, improved the discriminating ability of the UISS for
localized RCC.10 Other molecular factors identified
as independent risk factors are B7-H1,84,85
B7-H4,86 PD-1,87 EpCAM/KSA,88 IGF-1,89,90
T stage
pT1
pT2
pT3 or T4
N stage
pNx or N0
pN0 or N2
M stage
pM0
pM1
Tumor size
< 5 cm
R 5 cm
Furhman nuclear grade
1 or 2
3
4
Necrosis
Absent
Present
Score
0
1
2
0
2
0
4
0
2
0
1
3
0
2
The sum of the scores is used to determine survival using

Table 4.
Data from Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal
cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based
on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score.
J Urol 2002;168:2398.
619
620
Lane & Kattan
Table 4
Estimated cancer-specific survival (CSS) following
radical nephrectomy for cRCC according to SSIGN
score
SSIGN
Score
1-Year
CSS (%)
5-Year
CSS (%)
10-Year
CSS (%)
01
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 or
more
100
99.1
97.4
95.4
91.1
87.0
80.3
65.1
60.5
36.2
99.4
94.8
87.8
79.1
65.4
54.0
41.0
23.6
19.6
7.4
97.1
85.3
77.9
66.2
50.0
38.8
28.1
12.7
14.8
4.6
Data from Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. An outcome

prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor
stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol
2002;168:2398.
Smac/DIABLO,91 Survivin,85,92 PTEN,10,93 p27,93,94

Skp2,94 VEGF,95,96 VEGF receptors,96 and
EphA2.97
When judging a new marker, it is important to
evaluate it after considering the contribution of
existing markers. In other words, a new marker
should improve the ability to predict outcome
beyond what already can be achieved with existing markers. For example, the finding that high
Ki-67 expression predicted disease recurrence
was called into question by data indicating that it
was simply a surrogate for histologic necrosis.44

More recent evidence seems to indicate that
each of these histologic factors has independent
prognostic information.98 To validate the cost of
obtaining molecular data in current clinical practice, studies must evaluate not only the predictive
ability of a new marker but also its usefulness in
light of all the known clinical and pathologic risk
factors. A new marker that merely replaces an
existing marker is not likely to be helpful.14
MOLECULAR MARKER^DRIVEN THERAPIES

The two molecules that have been most rigorously
evaluated at present are CA-IX, the hypoxia-induced protein product of MN-9 gene, and the
co-stimulatory molecule B7-H1. Although initial
studies indicated that decreased CA-IX expression is associated independently with poor survival
in patients who have advanced cRCC,83,99 the association may not hold true in patients who have
localized disease.100 It is clear that CA-IX is
expressed in the vast majority of cRCC (97%)
and only rarely in other histologic subtypes, making it an attractive marker for diagnostic evaluation
of renal masses.100,101 In addition, CA-IX may
serve as a marker for response to systemic therapy, making CA-IX immunostaining particularly
valuable in advanced RCC. One study reported
that all complete responders to immunotherapy
with interleukin-2 had high CA-IX expression,102
and a second study reported that complete
response was twice as likely in this group of
patients.103 Some clinicians now are using this
information to reserve high-dose interleukin-2 administration for patients who have characteristics
Fig. 3. Postoperative nomogram predicting disease-specific survival based on clinical variables and molecular
markers (From Kim HL, Seligson D, Liu X, et al. Using protein expressions to predict survival in clear cell renal
carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:5468; with permission.)

predicting the highest chance of benefit. Patients
who have low CA-IX expression are not considered for interleukin-2 and are offered alternative
therapies instead. One small trial, however, now
indicates that CA-IX expression does not seem
to predict for response to temsirolimus.104
B7-H1 expression in cRCC initially was found to
be associated with a 4.5-fold greater risk of
cancer-specific mortality,84 This finding has been
internally validated,105 with the additional finding
that high Survivin and B7-H1 expression together
were associated with a 2.8-fold higher risk of
cancer-specific death.85 In addition to serving as
a tumor marker for progression, B7-H1 is an
attractive therapeutic target in patients who have
advanced RCC. Because B7-H1 may function as
an inhibitor of T-cellmediated antitumoral immunity, blockade of its activity with a humanized neutralizing antibody has been postulated to facilitate
immunotherapeutic responses in patients who
have cRCC, and clinical trials are anticipated.106
PROGNOSTIC ALGORITHMS FOR METASTATIC

RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
The group at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center first classified patients into good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups according to risk
factors that independently predicted overall survival in untreated patients who had metastatic
RCC (see Table 1).107 This model was validated
externally using data from the Cleveland Clinic.108
Mekhail and colleagues108 found four of the five
risk factors identified by Motzer and colleagues107
to be independent predictors of overall survival.
Subsequently, several analyses in previously
treated patients who had metastatic RCC have
been performed using similar methodology (see
Table 1). Two papers identified risk factors
predicting overall survival, largely in patients
treated before the advent of molecularly-targeted
therapy.109,110 More recently, risk factors that categorize patients into good, intermediate, and poor
risk for progression-free survival after treatment
with agents targeting VEGF have been examined.
A recent study analyzed factors predicting overall
survival in 300 patients in whom disease had progressed despite immunotherapy.111 The five independent risk factors that predicted shorter overall
survival (high alkaline phosphatase, abnormal corrected calcium, lactate dehydrogenase >1.5 upper
limit of normal, more than one metastatic site, and
years between nephrectomy and metastasis) were
incorporated into an algorithm that identified
good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups.111
The authors of that study concluded that these
algorithms can be used to standardize patient
enrollment in clinical trials better, and the authors

of this article agree with this assessment. One
caveat, however, is that all these studies use similar methodology, namely, the identification of risk
factors with independent predictive ability in multivariable analyses and the use of these risk factors
to group patients into a small number of categories. As mentioned earlier, grouping patients
results in a loss of the robustness of the data
and may result in the treatment of a heterogeneous
group of poor-risk patients in one manner.
SUMMARY
Patients should be provided with the most accurate information about their likely individual disease
course currently available to expert clinicians. A
preoperative nomogram can predict the likelihood
that a suspected malignancy is a cancer. Three
major prognostic algorithms exist for localized
RCC, each of which can assess the likelihood of
disease recurrence better than the TNM staging
system alone. Classification of patients who have
metastatic RCC into good-, intermediate-, and
poor-risk groups can define disease-specific survival better, aiding in the selection of appropriate
systemic therapies or clinical trials. In each of these
areas, more accurate nomograms will allow physicians to offer patients better counsel regarding
their likely clinical course, will assist in the planning
and tailoring of follow-up, and will identify patients
who are more likely to benefit from individual
treatments. Future algorithms predicting disease
outcomes or response to treatment are likely to
incorporate molecular factors with the potential to
provide even greater information.
REFERENCES
1. Janzen NK, Kim HL, Figlin RA, et al. Surveillance
after radical or partial nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma and management of recurrent
disease. Urol Clin North Am 2003;30:84352.
2. Coppin C, Porzsolt F, Awa A, et al. Immunotherapy
for advanced renal cell cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;CD001425.
3. Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, et al. Rising
incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States.
JAMA 1999;281:162831.
2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:4366.
5. Motzer RJ, Rini BI, Bukowski RM, et al. Sunitinib in
patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. JAMA
2006;295:251624.
versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell
carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:11524.
621
622
Lane & Kattan

7. Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Phase II
placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation
trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal
cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:250512.
8. Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib in
advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl
J Med 2007;356:12534.
9. Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renalcell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:227181.
10. Kim HL, Seligson D, Liu X, et al. Using protein
expressions to predict survival in clear cell renal
carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:546471.
11. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Bukowski RM. Renal
tumors. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, et al,
editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. vol. 4. 9th edition.
Philadelphia: Saunders; 2007. p. 2672731.
12. Frank I, Blute ML, Leibovich BC, et al. Independent
validation of the 2002 American Joint Committee on
Cancer Primary Tumor Classification for Renal Cell
Carcinoma using a large, single institution cohort.
J Urol 2005;173:188992.
13. Ficarra V, Schips L, Guille F, et al. Multiinstitutional
European validation of the 2002 TNM staging system in conventional and papillary localized renal
cell carcinoma. Cancer 2005;104:96874.
14. Kattan MW. Evaluating a new markers predictive
contribution. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:8224.
15. Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell
16. Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Belldegrun AS. The changing natural history of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol
2001;166:161123.
17. Patard JJ, Dorey FJ, Cindolo L, et al. Symptoms as
well as tumor size provide prognostic information
on patients with localized renal tumors. J Urol
2004;172:216771.
18. Patard JJ, Leray E, Cindolo L, et al. Multi-institutional validation of a symptom based classification
for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2004;172:85862.
19. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity
and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative
Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982;5:64955.
20. Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB, et al. Prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma: a multivariate
analysis of 643 patients using the revised 1997
TNM staging criteria. J Urol 2000;163:10905
[quiz 1295].
21. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Dorey F, et al. Improved
prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an
integrated staging system. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:
164957.
22. Kontak JA, Campbell SC. Prognostic factors in
renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 2003;30:
46780.
23. Kim HL, Belldegrun AS, Freitas DG, et al. Paraneoplastic signs and symptoms of renal cell carcinoma: implications for prognosis. J Urol 2003;
170:17426.
24. Kim HL, Han KR, Zisman A, et al. Cachexia-like
symptoms predict a worse prognosis in localized
T1 renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2004;171:18103.
25. Ljungberg B, Grankvist K, Rasmuson T. Serum
acute phase reactants and prognosis in renal cell
carcinoma. Cancer 1995;76:14359.
26. Symbas NP, Townsend MF, El-Galley R, et al. Poor
prognosis associated with thrombocytosis in
patients with renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2000;
86:2037.
27. OKeefe SC, Marshall FF, Issa MM, et al. Thrombocytosis is associated with a significant increase in
the cancer specific death rate after radical
nephrectomy. J Urol 2002;168:137880.
28. Jacobsen J, Grankvist K, Rasmuson T, et al. Prognostic importance of serum vascular endothelial
growth factor in relation to platelet and leukocyte
counts in human renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer
Prev 2002;11:24552.
29. Karakiewicz PI, Hutterer GC, Trinh QD, et al.
C-reactive protein is an informative predictor of
renal cell carcinoma-specific mortality: a European
study of 313 patients. Cancer 2007;110:12417.
30. Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, et al. Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among
histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am
J Surg Pathol 2003;27:61224.
31. Lau WK, Cheville JC, Blute ML, et al. Prognostic
features of pathologic stage T1 renal cell carcinoma after radical nephrectomy. Urology 2002;59:
5327.
32. Moch H, Gasser T, Amin MB, et al. Prognostic utility
of the recently recommended histologic classification and revised TNM staging system of renal cell
carcinoma: a Swiss experience with 588 tumors.
Cancer 2000;89:60414.
33. Amin MB, Tamboli P, Javidan J, et al. Prognostic impact of histologic subtyping of adult renal epithelial
neoplasms: an experience of 405 cases. Am J Surg
Pathol 2002;26:28191.
34. Beck SD, Patel MI, Snyder ME, et al. Effect of papillary and chromophobe cell type on disease-free
survival after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.
35. Linehan WM, Pinto PA, Srinivasan R, et al. Identification of the genes for kidney cancer: opportunity
for disease-specific targeted therapeutics. Clin
Cancer Res 2007;13:671s9s.
36. Yao M, Yoshida M, Kishida T, et al. VHL tumor suppressor gene alterations associated with good
prognosis in sporadic clear-cell renal carcinoma.
J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:156975.

37. Smits KM, Schouten LJ, van Dijk BA, et al. Genetic
and epigenetic alterations in the von Hippel-Lindau
gene: the influence on renal cancer prognosis. Clin
Cancer Res 2008;14:7827.
38. 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 2005;103:6259.
39. Lohse CM, Cheville JC. A review of prognostic
pathologic features and algorithms for patients
treated surgically for renal cell carcinoma. Clin
Lab Med 2005;25:43364.
40. de Peralta-Venturina M, Moch H, Amin M, et al. Sarcomatoid differentiation in renal cell carcinoma:
a study of 101 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:
27584.
41. Mian BM, Bhadkamkar N, Slaton JW, et al. Prognostic factors and survival of patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2002;167:
6570.
42. Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, et al. Sarcomatoid
renal cell carcinoma: an examination of underlying
histologic subtype and an analysis of associations
with patient outcome. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28:
43541.
43. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. An outcome
prediction model for patients with clear cell renal
cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy
based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis:
the SSIGN score. J Urol 2002;168:2395400.
44. Lam JS, Shvarts O, Said JW, et al. Clinicopathologic and molecular correlations of necrosis in the
primary tumor of patients with renal cell carcinoma.
Cancer 2005;103:251725.
45. Sengupta S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, et al. Histologic coagulative tumor necrosis as a prognostic
indicator of renal cell carcinoma aggressiveness.
Cancer 2005;104:51120.
46. Uzzo RG, Cherullo EE, Myles J, et al. Renal cell
carcinoma invading the urinary collecting system:
implications for staging. J Urol 2002;167:23926.
47. Klatte T, Chung J, Leppert JT, et al. Prognostic
relevance of capsular involvement and collecting
system invasion in stage I and II renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2007;99:8214.
48. Steinbach F, Stockle M, Griesinger A, et al. Multifocal renal cell tumors: a retrospective analysis of 56
patients treated with radical nephrectomy. J Urol
1994;152:13936.
49. Baltaci S, Orhan D, Soyupek S, et al. Influence of
tumor stage, size, grade, vascular involvement,
histological cell type and histological pattern on
multifocality of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2000;
164:369.
50. Blute ML, Thibault GP, Leibovich BC, et al. Multiple
ipsilateral renal tumors discovered at planned
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
nephron sparing surgery: importance of tumor histology and risk of metachronous recurrence. J Urol
2003;170:7603.
Dimarco DS, Lohse CM, Zincke H, et al. Long-term
survival of patients with unilateral sporadic multifocal renal cell carcinoma according to histologic
subtype compared with patients with solitary
tumors after radical nephrectomy. Urology 2004;
64:4627.
Lang H, Lindner V, Martin M, et al. Prognostic value
of multifocality on progression and survival in localized renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2004;45:
74953.
Richstone L, Scherr DS, Reuter VR, et al. Multifocal
renal cortical tumors: frequency, associated clinicopathological features and impact on survival.
J Urol 2004;171:61520.
Hatcher PA, Anderson EE, Paulson DF, et al. Surgical
management and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma
invading the vena cava. J Urol 1991;145:203
[discussion: 234].
Kim HL, Zisman A, Han KR, et al. Prognostic significance of venous thrombus in renal cell carcinoma.
Are renal vein and inferior vena cava involvement
different? J Urol 2004;171:58891.
Ishimura T, Sakai I, Hara I, et al. Microscopic venous
invasion in renal cell carcinoma as a predictor of
recurrence after radical surgery. Int J Urol 2004;11:
2648.
Lang H, Lindner V, Letourneux H, et al. Prognostic
value of microscopic venous invasion in renal cell
carcinoma: long-term follow-up. Eur Urol 2004;46:
3315.
DallOglio MF, Antunes AA, Sarkis AS, et al. Microvascular tumour invasion in renal cell carcinoma:
the most important prognostic factor. BJU Int
2007;100:5525.
Lane BR, Babineau D, Kattan MW, et al. A preoperative prognostic nomogram for solid enhancing
renal tumors 7 cm or less amenable to partial
nephrectomy. J Urol 2007;178:42934.
Raj GV, Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting 12-year probability of
metastatic renal cancer. J Urol 2008;179:214651.
Yaycioglu O, Rutman MP, Balasubramaniam M, et al.
Clinical and pathologic tumor size in renal cell carcinoma; difference, correlation, and analysis of the
influencing factors. Urology 2002;60:338.
Cindolo L, de la Taille A, Messina G, et al. A preoperative clinical prognostic model for non-metastatic
renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2003;92:9015.
Cindolo L, Patard JJ, Chiodini P, et al. Comparison
of predictive accuracy of four prognostic models
for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after
nephrectomy. Cancer 2005;104:136271.
Sorbellini M, Kattan MW, Snyder ME, et al. A
postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting
623
Lane & Kattan
624
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
recurrence for patients with conventional clear cell

Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Wieder J, et al. Risk group
assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to predict the natural history of patients with surgically resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:
455966.
Patard JJ, Kim HL, Lam JS, et al. Use of the University of California Los Angeles integrated staging
system to predict survival in renal cell carcinoma:
an international multicenter study. J Clin Oncol
2004;22:331622.
Takahashi M, Rhodes DR, Furge KA, et al. Gene expression profiling of clear cell renal cell carcinoma:
gene identification and prognostic classification.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:97549.
Young AN, Amin MB, Moreno CS, et al. Expression
profiling of renal epithelial neoplasms: a method for
tumor classification and discovery of diagnostic
molecular markers. Am J Pathol 2001;158:
163951.
Higgins JP, Shinghal R, Gill H, et al. Gene expression patterns in renal cell carcinoma assessed by
complementary DNA microarray. Am J Pathol
2003;162:92532.
Gieseg MA, Cody T, Man MZ, et al. Expression profiling of human renal carcinomas with functional taxonomic analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2002;3:26.
Boer JM, Huber WK, Sultmann H, et al. Identification and classification of differentially expressed
genes in renal cell carcinoma by expression profiling on a global human 31,500-element cDNA array.
Genome Res 2001;11:186170.
Moch H, Schraml P, Bubendorf L, et al. Highthroughput tissue microarray analysis to evaluate
genes uncovered by cDNA microarray screening
in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Pathol 1999;154:
9816.
Liou LS, Shi T, Duan ZH, et al. Microarray gene
expression profiling and analysis in renal cell carcinoma. BMC Urol 2004;4:9.
Yao M, Tabuchi H, Nagashima Y, et al. Gene
expression analysis of renal carcinoma: adipose
differentiation-related protein as a potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for clear-cell renal
carcinoma. J Pathol 2005;205:37787.
Ami Y, Shimazui T, Akaza H, et al. Gene expression
profiles correlate with the morphology and metastasis characteristics of renal cell carcinoma cells.
Oncol Rep 2005;13:7580.
Vasselli JR, Shih JH, Iyengar SR, et al. Predicting
survival in patients with metastatic kidney cancer
by gene-expression profiling in the primary tumor.
77. Skubitz KM, Skubitz AP. Differential gene expression in renal-cell cancer. J Lab Clin Med 2002;
140:5264.
78. Huo L, Sugimura J, Tretiakova MS, et al. C-kit
expression in renal oncocytomas and chromophobe
renal cell carcinomas. Hum Pathol 2005;36:2628.
79. Junker K, Hindermann W, von Eggeling F, et al.
CD70: a new tumor specific biomarker for renal
cell carcinoma. J Urol 2005;173:21503.
80. Tretiakova MS, Sahoo S, Takahashi M, et al. Expression of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase in papillary renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;
28:6976.
81. Yang XJ, Tan MH, Kim HL, et al. A molecular classification of papillary renal cell carcinoma. Cancer
Res 2005;65:562837.
82. Liu X, Minin V, Huang Y, et al. Statistical methods
for analyzing tissue microarray data. J Biopharm
Stat 2004;14:67185.
83. Kim HL, Seligson D, Liu X, et al. Using tumor
markers to predict the survival of patients with
metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2005;173:
1496501.
84. Thompson RH, Gillett MD, Cheville JC, et al. Costimulatory B7-H1 in renal cell carcinoma patients:
indicator of tumor aggressiveness and potential
therapeutic target. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2004;101:171749.
85. Krambeck AE, Dong H, Thompson RH, et al. Survivin and b7-h1 are collaborative predictors of
survival and represent potential therapeutic targets
for patients with renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer
Res 2007;13:174956.
86. Krambeck AE, Thompson RH, Dong H, et al. B7-H4
expression in renal cell carcinoma and tumor vasculature: associations with cancer progression
and survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:
103916.
87. Thompson RH, Dong H, Lohse CM, et al. PD-1 is
expressed by tumor-infiltrating immune cells and
is associated with poor outcome for patients with
renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:
175761.
88. Seligson DB, Pantuck AJ, Liu X, et al. Epithelial cell
adhesion molecule (KSA) expression: pathobiology
and its role as an independent predictor of survival
in renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:
265969.
89. Parker A, Cheville JC, Lohse C, et al. Expression of
insulin-like growth factor I receptor and survival in
patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 2003;170:4204.
90. Rasmuson T, Grankvist K, Jacobsen J, et al. Serum
insulin-like growth factor-1 is an independent
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
predictor of prognosis in patients with renal cell

carcinoma. Acta Oncol 2004;43:7448.
Mizutani Y, Nakanishi H, Yamamoto K, et al. Downregulation of Smac/DIABLO expression in renal cell
carcinoma and its prognostic significance. J Clin
Oncol 2005;23:44854.
Byun SS, Yeo WG, Lee SE, et al. Expression of survivin in renal cell carcinomas: association with
pathologic features and clinical outcome. Urology
2007;69:347.
Pantuck AJ, Seligson DB, Klatte T, et al. Prognostic
relevance of the mTOR pathway in renal cell carcinoma: implications for molecular patient selection
for targeted therapy. Cancer 2007;109:225767.
Langner C, von Wasielewski R, Ratschek M, et al. Biological significance of p27 and Skp2 expression in
renal cell carcinoma. A systematic analysis of primary and metastatic tumour tissues using a tissue microarray technique. Virchows Arch 2004;445:6316.
Jacobsen J, Rasmuson T, Grankvist K, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor as prognostic factor in
Rivet J, Mourah S, Murata H, et al. VEGF and VEGFR-1
are coexpressed by epithelial and stromal cells of
renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2008;112:43342.
Herrem CJ, Tatsumi T, Olson KS, et al. Expression
of EphA2 is prognostic of disease-free interval
and overall survival in surgically treated patients
with renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2005;
11:22631.
Tollefson MK, Thompson RH, Sheinin Y, et al. Ki-67
and coagulative tumor necrosis are independent
predictors of poor outcome for patients with clear
cell renal cell carcinoma and not surrogates for
each other. Cancer 2007;110:78390.
Bui MH, Seligson D, Han KR, et al. Carbonic anhydrase IX is an independent predictor of survival in
advanced renal clear cell carcinoma: implications
for prognosis and therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2003;
9:80211.
Leibovich BC, Sheinin Y, Lohse CM, et al. Carbonic
anhydrase IX is not an independent predictor of
outcome for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:475764.
Divgi CR, Pandit-Taskar N, Jungbluth AA, et al. Preoperative characterisation of clear-cell renal
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
carcinoma using iodine-124-labelled antibody chimeric G250 (124I-cG250) and PET in patients
with renal masses: a phase I trial. Lancet Oncol
2007;8:30410.
Bui MH, Visapaa H, Seligson D, et al. Prognostic
value of carbonic anhydrase IX and KI67 as predictors of survival for renal clear cell carcinoma.
J Urol 2004;171:24616.
Atkins M, Regan M, McDermott D, et al. Carbonic
anhydrase IX expression predicts outcome of interleukin 2 therapy for renal cancer. Clin Cancer Res
2005;11:371421.
Cho D, Signoretti S, Dabora S, et al. Potential histologic and molecular predictors of response to temsirolimus in patients with advanced renal cell
carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2007;5:37985.
Thompson RH, Kuntz SM, Leibovich BC, et al.
Tumor B7-H1 is associated with poor prognosis in
renal cell carcinoma patients with long-term
follow-up. Cancer Res 2006;66:33815.
Thompson RH, Dong H, Kwon ED. Implications of
B7-H1 expression in clear cell carcinoma of the
kidney for prognostication and therapy. Clin
Cancer Res 2007;13:709s15s.
Motzer RJ, Mazumdar M, Bacik J, et al. Survival
and prognostic stratification of 670 patients with
advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol
1999;17:253040.
Mekhail TM, Abou-Jawde RM, Boumerhi G, et al.
Validation and extension of the memorial sloan-kettering prognostic factors model for survival in
patients with previously untreated metastatic renal
cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:83241.
Boumerhi G, Mekhail TM, Abou-Jawde RM, et al.
Prognostic factors for survival in previously treated
patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. J Clin
Oncol 2003;22 [abstract 1647].
Motzer RJ, Bacik J, Schwartz LH, et al. Prognostic
factors for survival in previously treated patients
with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol
2004;22:45463.
Escudier B, Choueiri TK, Oudard S, et al. Prognostic factors of metastatic renal cell carcinoma after
failure of immunotherapy: new paradigm from
a large phase III trial with shark cartilage extract
AE 941. J Urol 2007;178:19015.
625
Renal Tumor Natural

History : the Rationale
and Role for Active
Sur veillance
Michael A.S. Jewett, MDa,*, Alvaro Zuniga, MDb
KEYWORDS
Kidney tumors Small renal mass
Watchful waiting Active surveillance
a lower grade than those in symptomatic patients.

The greatest incidence of SRMs is in patients older
than 65 years, which is an age group more likely to
undergo radiological examination for other medical conditions.1 They also have more comorbidity
and are therefore at increased surgical risk.
Hollingsworth and colleagues13 in a cohort of
26,618 individuals treated surgically for localized
kidney cancer, showed that the relative benefit of
therapy is diminished by competing causes
of mortality in older patients. Nearly one third of
patients aged 70 years and older died from unrelated comorbid disease within 5 years of curative
surgery.
Even though surgical morbidity is decreasing, it is
still significant and has been reported in 11% to 40%
of cases.9,1416 Despite widespread treatment at diagnosis, overall mortality rates associated with RCC
have not decreased.6 Five-year cancer-specific
survival of 90% or greater with low recurrence rates
is widely reported for early-stage tumors.9,17,18
Interestingly, these results are frequently reported
to be independent of margin status.19
These observations suggest that SRMs that are
RCC may frequently be slow growing and have
a reduced risk of early progression. Initial active
surveillance with delayed treatment for progression for some patients should be considered.20
This should result in an overall decrease in treatment burden and cost saving.
a
Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital and the University Health
Network, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-124, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4
b
UroOncology Fellowship Program, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
E-mail address: m.jewett@utoronto.ca (M.A.S. Jewett).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 627634

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.004
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common

malignancy of the kidney and it represents 2% to
3% of newly diagnosed cancers in the United
States. It is estimated that there were 51,190
new cases and 12,890 deaths from kidney cancer
in 2007.1 This incidence has been increasing in the
past 20 years.13 From 1983 to 2002, the overall
age-adjusted incidence rate for kidney cancer
rose from 7.1 to 10.8 cases per 100,000 US population, which is an increase of 52%.4 This increase
is at least in part attributable to the more frequent
use of abdominal imaging.3,57 All clinical stages
have increased in incidence but the largest
increase is in tumors smaller than 4 cm. These
CT-enhancing lesions that have the characteristics
of RCC have been termed small renal masses
(SRMs).8 The incidence of tumors 2 to 4 cm in
size rose from 1.0 to 3.3 per 100,000.4 Resected
tumor size dropped from a maximum diameter of
7.8 cm to 5.3 cm between 1989 and 1998.9 Diagnosis as an incidental finding increased from 7%
to 13% in the early 1970s to 48% to 66% of kidney
cancer currently.5,6,10,11 Not all SRMs are RCC,
and those incidentally discovered are more frequently benign. Frank and colleagues12 reported
a large series of 2770 renal tumors. Benign tumors
accounted for 46.3% of those smaller than 1 cm,
22.4% of tumors 1.0 to 1.9 cm, 22.0% of tumors
2.0 to 2.9 cm, and 19.9% of tumors 3.0 to
3.9 cm and most of these incidental tumors have
628
Jewett & Zuniga

NATURAL HISTORY
The natural history of renal tumors has not been
extensively studied because the only established
curative treatment for RCC has been surgery by
radical or partial nephrectomy (which is done
soon after diagnosis).9,2123
Since 1995 there have been a number of
reports that contribute to our understanding of
the natural history of SRMs.20,2427 They all indicate that these tumors grow slowly. However,
most of the clinical series are small, single institutional and retrospective.28 Bosniak and
colleagues24 collected 40 incidentally detected
renal masses < 3.5 cm in diameter with 3.25
years of follow-up. They reported a mean linear
growth rate of 0.36 cm/year (01.1cm/year) by
retrospectively reviewing available imaging obtained before surgery. Of 26 tumors removed,
22 (85%) revealed pathological RCC. Nineteen
had a growth rate < 0.35 cm/year and none of
the patients developed metastatic disease. These
results showed that most of their reported renal
masses had little or no change in size and they hypothesized that the small proportion of tumors
with rapid growth rates were not curable despite
early detection and treatment.24
We have reported our experience with prospective surveillance in 32 tumors (25 solid, 7 Bosniak
III-IV) in 29 patients followed for a mean of 27.9
months (range 5.3 to 143.0). The overall average
growth rate became insignificant after growing tumors were removed (nine tumors were removed
after an average follow-up of 3.1 years) and growth
was not associated with the initial tumor size
(P 5 .28). For solid masses, the average growth
rate was 0.11 cm3 per year and for cystic masses
it was 0.09 cm3 per year (P 5 .41). Seven masses
(22%) reached 4 cm in diameter after 12 to 85
months of follow-up and eight (25%) doubled their
volume within 12 months. Overall, 11 (34%) fulfilled one of these two criteria of progression.
Finally and importantly, four of these renal masses
decreased in size (Fig. 1).
Kassouf and colleagues25 reported a similar experience with SRMs. In 24 patients with 32 months
of follow-up, most of the tumors had no significant
growth and no metastatic disease was observed
during the surveillance period. In a recently reported pooled analysis, nine single-institutional
series with a total of 234 masses met the authors
criteria for study.28 Overall, the mean initial lesion
size was 2.6 cm (range 1.73 to 4.08 cm) and
86% (178 of 208) were lesions smaller than 4 cm
in maximal diameter at presentation. They were
followed for a mean of 34 months (range 26 to
39) and the mean growth rate was 0.28 cm/year
Fig. 1. Individual observed tumor volumes over time,

with superimposed summary curve (heavy line) produced by a cubic smoothing spline routine. Growth
patterns of the masses that were removed surgically
are marked with asterisks. (Reproduced from Volpe
A, Panzarella T, Rendon RA, et al. The natural history
of incidentally detected small renal masses. Cancer
2004;100(4):73845; with permission.)
(range 0.09 to 0.86 cm/year). Ninety-two percent

of the lesions evaluated pathologically (42% of
the tumors) were carcinoma. A comparison of
size at presentation and growth rate in the 116 tumors (63 confirmed RCCs versus 53 observed
without biopsy) revealed that size at presentation
did not differ but that the growth rate of confirmed
RCCs was greater (0.4 0.36 versus 0.21 0.4
cm yearly, P 5 .001). The difference in growth
rates may have been the result of a selection
bias because of treatment delay in lesions with
slower growth rates.
Kouba and colleagues29 reported a correlation
between SRM growth rate and age with younger
patients (60 years old or less) having more rapid
growth (0.77 cm versus 0.26 cm per year). This observation supports earlier intervention in younger
patients.
A lack of interval radiographic growth does not
indicate benign histology. There is a wide range
of growth with some lesions showing no interval
growth over the short term and most of those
have malignant pathology. Kunkle and colleagues30 followed 106 enhancing renal masses
for a minimum of 12 months (median 29). Pathology was available in 42 patients (40%). Overall,
33% (35/106) had no growth. The overall frequency of malignant lesions did not differ significantly between those with growth and those with
zero growth (89% versus 83%, P 5 .56). Furthermore, they did not find any correlation between
growth and patients age, lesion size, solid/cystic
appearance, or the incidental detection rate.
Seventy-eight (26%) of 295 observed lesions failed
Renal Tumor Natural History

to show growth. Overall, 26% to 33% of lesions
under active surveillance do not grow and this
characteristic does not predict for benign
pathology.30
PROGNOSTIC FACTORS FOR TUMOR GROWTH

Clinical and pathologic stage, histologic subtype,
and grade are important prognostic factors for
outcome with RCC.31 Histology and grade are
less well understood factors for SRMs that are
proven RCC (stage T1a).
Overall, new papillary and chromophobe RCCs
appear to be smaller at presentation than clear
cell carcinomas but it is not known if they have
a slower growth rate.12,32 The relationship of
nuclear grade to growth is also unclear. Oda and
colleagues26 could not find a relation between
growth rate and the degree of nuclear anaplasia
in 16 patients. However, Kato and colleagues33
reported that Fuhrman grade III tumors, which
comprised 17% of his series of 18 incidentally
detected with histologic-proven RCCs that underwent surgical resection after a median observation
follow-up of 22.5 months, grew faster than Fuhrman grade I-II tumors.
Tumor size at presentation does not clearly predict growth rate. Sowery and Siemens34 did not
find a correlation in 22 patients with T1-2N0M0
tumors. Growth appeared to be slow even in those
diagnosed with larger masses. Others have made
the same observations that size and growth rate
do not correlate.28,35
The presence of cystic components may be
a marker of a slower growth rate but numbers
reported are small and most were removed
early.3638 Others report that the presence of cystic
components does not predict slower growth.27,36,38
Those that are detected incidentally and
are lower stage have a better survival rate
(5-year cancer-specific survival 85.3% versus
62.5%).6,7,9,11,12,18,3941
Molecular markers of prognosis for RCC would
be very useful. Ki-67 (a nuclear antigen that is
a marker of active cell proliferation), p53 protein
(induces apoptosis), PTEN (a tumor suppressor
gene), pAkt, nuclear akt, p27, pS6, bcl-2 (inhibits
apoptosis), cyclin-D1 (a protein kinase that plays
a role in cell-cycle regulation), vascular endothelial
growth factor (VEGF), caveolin-1 (major structural
component of caveoae that might play a role in
invasion and metastatic progression), and HER-2
(an epidermal growth factor) have been studied.33,4249 In a recent immunohistochemistry
study by Phuoc and colleagues47 in 119 paraffinembedded clear-cell RCCs, using univariate analyses, high Ki-67, p53, VEGF, and caveolin-1 were
associated with decreased survival but high bcl-2

and cyclin-D1 were associated with increased survival. On multivariate analysis, expression of p53
or bcl-2 was an independent predictor of disease-specific survival. In addition, low PTEN expression was associated with decreased survival.
Kim and colleagues44 developed a multivariate
clinical prognostic model based on the UCLA Integrated Staging System. CA9, CA12 (cell surface
transmembrane carbonic anhydrases that are normally up-regulated by hypoxia-inducible factor in
a low oxygen environment), PTEN, vimentin (epithelial cell adhesion molecule expressed on cell
surface of carcinomas), p53, T stage, and performance status were significant predictors of
survival.
Most of these studies included renal masses
larger than 3 cm. However, Kato and colleagues33
investigated the natural history of incidentally discovered SRMs and evaluated several features including cell proliferation and apoptosis. The cell
activity was measured by immunostaining using
Ki-67 and TUNEL (tranferase-mediated dUTPbiotin nick). They found that tumor growth rate
is not associated with Ki-67 immunostaining and
apoptosis was related to growth rate. However,
Oda and colleagues45 failed to establish a correlation between cell proliferation, apoptosis, and
angiogenesis (measured with CD34 immunoanalysis) and tumor growth. Fujimoto and
colleagues,43 in a study of 18 patients with incidental renal tumors, reported that the argyrophilic
nucleolar organizer regions (AgNORs) and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) activity immunohistochemically correlated with the tumor
doubling time (DT). DT was inversely and significantly correlated with AgNORs and PCNA. At
this time, molecular markers of progression by tumor growth or metastatic potential have not been
established as clinically useful triggers for therapy
when active surveillance is being conducted or
being considered.
There has been considerable effort to establish
genomic markers of progression and response to
treatment in RCC, as has been reported in retinoblastoma for example.50,51 Genomic features of
RCC have been studied using microarrays.5259
Higgins and colleagues52 characterized different
types of RCC. Takahashi and colleagues57 used
21,632 element arrays to prognostically stratify
29 clear-cell carcinoma patients. They found two
groups of patients and identified 40 genes that
predict patients prognosis, which are related to
matrix metalloproteinase and angiogenesis activity. One group had a 100% 5-year survival with
88% of these without clinical evidence of metastatic disease. The remainder had an average
629
630
Jewett & Zuniga

survival time of 25.4 months with a 0% 5-year survival rate. This stratification by gene expression
was superior to stage but similar to grade.
Zhao and colleagues59 studied 177 clear-cell
carcinomas and identified different types by distinct gene expression patterns with differing prognosis. They developed a set of 259 genes that
predicted survival. By multivariate analysis, the
gene expression pattern was a strong predictor
of survival independent of tumor stage, grade,
and performance status. Vasselli and colleagues58
studied 58 archived tumors from patients with
sporadic, stage IV RCC and 8 matched grossly
normal-appearing kidney samples. They identified
two patterns of gene expression, which correlated
with a significant difference in overall survival.
Although several reports using microarray data
have been published in the past decade, variations
among studies and lack of consistency between
different platforms exist. At present, expression
array data have limited clinical utility.
RISK OF PROGRESSION TO METASTATIC DISEASE

Progression to metastases as opposed to progression in tumor stage in patients under observation therapy is rare and poorly documented. In the
recent pooled analysis, only 3 patients progressed
to metastatic disease, representing 1% (3 in 286)
of the total lesions.28,34,35,60 It is important to point
out that all of these patients were symptomatic at
the time of disease progression. They reported the
lesion size at presentation, the growth rate and follow-up in two patients. One patient presented with
an 8.8-cm lesion and was followed for 111 months
with a growth rate of 0.2 cm per year. The other
developed metastatic disease after 54 months of
follow-up, with a 2.0-cm lesion at the presentation
and a growth rate of 1.3 cm per year.60
BIOPSY OF RENAL MASSES

The role of percutaneous biopsy remains controversial but is increasingly being discussed
because of the rising incidental discovery of
SRMs.61,62 Tissue diagnosis may be useful to direct therapy and to avoid unnecessary nephrectomies. However, biopsy of indeterminate renal
masses is not standard practice in the urology
community.63 In a recent survey, 43% of the consultant urologists never use biopsy, whereas 34%
always employ it for the diagnosis and 23% of
urologists use biopsy in selected cases. These
results probably reflect perceptions of the complication rate and accuracy of early reports.64 However, several new studies have shown that
biopsy with fine needle aspiration (FNA) and/or
core is a safe procedure with a good accuracy.6567 The largest recent series with core and
FNA biopsy reported a low incidence of complication.6874 There are only six cases of tumor seeding in the clinical literature, so the overall
estimated risk is less than 0.01%.7581 There are
no recent reports of implantation; probably owing
to better technique including the use of guiding
cannulas.6567 Other complications such as infection, arteriovenous fistula, and pneumothorax are
extremely unlikely. Smith reported in 16,000 fine
needle biopsies an overall mortality rate of
0.031%.82 Maturen and colleagues66 studied the
accuracy of imaging-guided percutaneous renal
mass biopsy and its impact on clinical management. They performed 152 biopsies in 125 patients
with 97% malignancy sensitivity and 100% of
specificity. These results are supported by several
others reports showing a sensitivity and specificity
of 70% to 100% and 100%, respectively, but the
average sensitivity of FNA for cancer diagnosis is
lower (76% to 97%) than needle cores.64,8385
However, some report false-negative rates of up
to 24%.64 False-negative biopsies result from
sampling necrotic zones or missing the tumor entirely (which is easy to do, yielding normal kidney
or blood for example). These biopsies should be
classified as insufficient or unsatisfactory to
make a diagnosis to establish the incidence of
false-negative biopsies.
Lesion size is important. Rybicki and colleagues86 cautioned that negative results in percutaneous biopsies should be interpreted with
caution in masses smaller than 3 cm and larger
than 6 cm (10% of false-negative rates). Also, Lechevailler and colleagues71 showed that the rate of
biopsy failures increase in smaller lesions. Renal
masses smaller than 3 cm had a higher incidence
of biopsy failure compared with lesions larger than
3 cm (37% versus 9%). Technical changes by the
same group improved results.72
A good biopsy can establish tumor subtype and
grade, which may be helpful. Renshaw and colleagues87 studied 38 renal FNA specimens.
Seventy-four percent of the primary renal lesions
and all oncocytomas and the two chromophobe
tumors were correctly classified. With regard to tumor grade, Lechevallier and colleagues71 reported
a 74% concordance between surgical tissue and
percutaneous biopsy, with a 69% concordance
in lesions under 4 cm. However, other studies
have shown better correlation between pathological grade and the preoperative FNA (89% and
92% interobserver and intraobserver, variability).88
The use of percutaneous biopsies can have a remarkable effect on decision making and cost.
Wood and colleagues89 reported a 44% change

in treatment plan in patients because of the biopsy
result. In 152 masses biopsied, Maturen and colleagues66 showed that patient management
changed in 60.5%. Others report similar change.72
There are limited data regarding the health care
cost saving attributable to biopsy.90 In our institution, we recommend CT-guided biopsy of all
SRMs before treatment to confirm malignancy, to
classify the histologic subtype, and establish
grade with a reported 84% diagnostic accuracy
and 100% concordance with the final pathology
(Jewett and colleagues, unpublished data, July
2008).
ROLE FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE IN THE

MANAGEMENT OF SMALL RENAL MASSES
The treatment paradigm for enhancing renal
masses that are consistent with RCC has been immediate removal or more recently probe ablation
in selected cases. The rationale has been that
early treatment will improve survival. However, as
we treat more and smaller tumors (usually detected incidentally) without metastases or symptoms, kidney cancer mortality continues to rise.4
The natural history evidence that many of these
small tumors have a low malignant potential to
progress has been presented. Therefore, a period
of initial active surveillance delaying treatment for
evidence of progression is attractive, particularly
in the elderly and infirm.
The evidence to support biopsy followed by
a period of surveillance includes the following:
1. A significant proportion of SRMs turn out to be
benign when biopsied or removed. We should
not assume that enhancing masses are all
RCC.
2. Even with histologic confirmation of RCC, most
SRMs appear to have a slow growth rate and
a very low potential to metastasize, at least in
the first few years. This may be in part because
of the larger proportion that are papillary or
chromophobe RCC and that have a low grade.
3. Many SRMs are detected in elderly patients
with comorbidities. The risk of perioperative
mortality and morbidity is higher and often appears to exceed the risk of progression.
4. If progression in tumor stage is detected early,
and treatment delivered, survival may not be
compromised, although this remains to be
firmly established. There does not appear to
be increased surgical morbidity attributable to
treatment of larger tumors in this setting.
We do not yet recommend this approach for fit
and young patients until the safety is established
or until we have more accurate prognostic factors.
We do however recommend an attempt to biopsy

all SRMs before treatment to establish that they
are indeed malignant.
The trigger point for progression to treatment is
not well defined. An upper limit of 3 to 4 cm for the
maximum tumor diameter is commonly used to
identify renal masses that are at very low risk of
metastasizing.9193 We are currently testing the
hypothesis that masses that reach 4 cm in maximum dimension, or volume doubling in less than
12 months, are at risk of further progression and
should be treated. Surveillance is conducted by
imaging, usually every 6 months, or annually if
the tumor appears benign on biopsy. As we reported previously, 34% of our patients appear to
progress.27 No patients progressed to metastatic
disease and two patients died of unrelated causes.
In our Canadian prospective trial we have observed metastatic progression in 2% of patients,
which is the reason we are very cautious about
recommending this approach in younger patients.94 We believe that risk stratification of patients by age, potential morbidity of therapy, and
biopsy result is appropriate before treatment of
enhancing SRMs.
REFERENCES
1. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al, editors.
SEER cancer statistics review, 19752004. Bethesda
(MD): National Cancer Institute; 2007.
2. Karumanchi SA, Merchan J, Sukhatme VP. Renal
cancer: molecular mechanisms and newer therapeutic options. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2002;
11:3742.
3. Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Belldegrun AS. The changing
natural history of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001;
166:161123.
4. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:
13314.
5. Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, et al. Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States.
JAMA 1999;281:162831.
6. Hock LM, Lynch J, Balaji KC. Increasing incidence
of all stages of kidney cancer in the last 2 decades
in the United States: an analysis of surveillance, epidemiology and end results program data. J Urol
2002;167:5760.
7. Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: prognostic significance of incidentally detected tumors. J Urol 2000;163:42630.
8. Rendon RA, Stanietzky N, Panzarella T, et al. The
natural history of small renal masses. J Urol 2000;
164:11437.
631
632
Jewett & Zuniga

9. Lee CT, Katz J, Shi W, et al. Surgical management of
renal tumors 4 cm or less in a contemporary cohort.
J Urol 2000;163:7306.
1998;51:2035.
11. Luciani LG, Cestari R, Tallarigo C. Incidental renal
cell carcinomaage and stage characterization
and clinical implications: study of 1092 patients
(19821997). Urology 2000;56:5862.
12. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related
to tumor size. J Urol 2003;170:221720.
13. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. Fiveyear survival after surgical treatment for kidney cancer: a population-based competing risk analysis.
Cancer 2007;109:17638.
14. Mejean A, Vogt B, Quazza JE, et al. Mortality and
morbidity after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma
using a transperitoneal anterior subcostal incision.
Eur Urol 1999;36:298302.
15. Stephenson AJ, Hakimi AA, Snyder ME, et al. Complications of radical and partial nephrectomy in
a large contemporary cohort. J Urol 2004;171:
1304.
16. Uzzo RG, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for
renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes.
J Urol 2001;166:618.
17. Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 2001;166:637.
18. Licht MR, Novick AC, Goormastic M. Nephron sparing surgery in incidental versus suspected renal cell
19. Sutherland SE, Resnick MI, Maclennan GT, et al. Does
the sizes of the surgical margin in partial nephrectomy
for renal cell cancer really matter? J Urol 2002;167:
614.
20. Wehle MJ, Thiel DD, Petrou SP, et al. Conservative
management of incidental contrast-enhancing renal
masses as safe alternative to invasive therapy. Urology 2004;64:4952.
21. Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results
of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell
carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol 2000;163:
4425.
22. Morgan WR, Zincke H. Progression and survival after renal-conserving surgery for renal cell carcinoma: experience in 104 patients and extended
follow-up. J Urol 1990;144:8528.
23. Novick AC. Nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell
carcinoma. Br J Urol 1998;82:3214.
24. Bosniak MA, Birnbaum BA, Krinsky GA, et al. Small
renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations
on growth. Radiology 1995;197:58997.
25. Kassouf W, Aprikian AG, Laplante M, et al. Natural

history of renal masses followed expectantly. J Urol
2004;171:1113.
26. Oda T, Miyao N, Takahashi A, et al. Growth rates of
primary and metastatic lesions of renal cell carcinoma. Int J Urol 2001;8:4737.
27. Volpe A, Panzarella T, Rendon RA, et al. The natural
history of incidentally detected small renal masses.
Cancer 2004;100:73845.
28. Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, et al. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses:
meta-analysis and review of the world literature.
J Urol 2006;175:42531.
29. Kouba E, Smith A, McRackan D, et al. Watchful waiting for solid renal masses: insight into the natural
history and results of delayed intervention. J Urol
2007;177:46670.
30. Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DY, et al. Enhancing
renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol 2007;177:84953.
31. Girgin C, Tarhan H, Hekimgil M, et al. P53 mutations
and other prognostic factors of renal cell carcinoma.
Urol Int 2001;66:7883.
32. Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, et al. Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among
histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am J
Surg Pathol 2003;27:61224.
33. Kato M, Suzuki T, Suzuki Y, et al. Natural history of
small renal cell carcinoma: evaluation of growth
rate, histological grade, cell proliferation and apoptosis. J Urol 2004;172:8636.
34. Sowery RD, Siemens DR. Growth characteristics of
renal cortical tumors in patients managed by watchful waiting. Can J Urol 2004;11:240710.
35. Lamb GW, Bromwich EJ, Vasey P, et al. Management
of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for
nephrectomynatural history, complications, and
outcome. Urology 2004;64:90913.
36. Corica FA, Iczkowski KA, Cheng L, et al. Cystic renal
cell carcinoma is cured by resection: a study of 24
cases with long-term followup. J Urol 1999;161:
40811.
37. Koga S, Nishikido M, Hayashi T, et al. Outcome of
surgery in cystic renal cell carcinoma. Urology
2000;56:6770.
38. Nassir A, Jollimore J, Gupta R, et al. Multilocular
cystic renal cell carcinoma: a series of 12 cases
and review of the literature. Urology 2002;60:4217.
39. Bretheau D, Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C, et al.
Prognostic significance of incidental renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 1995;27:31923.
40. Sweeney JP, Thornhill JA, Graiger R, et al. Incidentally detected renal cell carcinoma: pathological features, survival trends and implications for treatment.
Br J Urol 1996;78:3513.

41. Thompson IM, Peek M. Improvement in survival of patients with renal cell carcinomathe role of the serendipitously detected tumor. J Urol 1988;140:48790.
42. Delahunt B, Bethwaite PB, Thornton A, et al. Proliferation of renal cell carcinoma assessed by fixation-resistant polyclonal Ki-67 antibody labeling.
Correlation with clinical outcome. Cancer 1995;75:
27149.
43. Fujimoto N, Sugita A, Terasawa Y, et al. Observations on the growth rate of renal cell carcinoma. Int
J Urol 1995;2:716.
44. Kim HL, Seligson D, Liu X, et al. Using tumor
markers to predict the survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2005;173:
1496501.
45. Oda T, Takahashi A, Miyao N, et al. Cell proliferation,
apoptosis, angiogenesis and growth rate of incidentally found renal cell carcinoma. Int J Urol 2003;
10:138.
46. Pantuck AJ, Seligson DB, Klatte T, et al. Prognostic
relevance of the mTOR pathway in renal cell carcinoma: implications for molecular patient selection
for targeted therapy. Cancer 2007;109:225767.
47. Phuoc NB, Ehara H, Gotoh T, et al. Immunohistochemical analysis with multiple antibodies in search
of prognostic markers for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2007;69:8438.
48. Shin Lee J, Seok Kim H, Bok Kim Y, et al. Expression of
PTEN in renal cell carcinoma and its relation to tumor
behavior and growth. J Surg Oncol 2003;84:16672.
49. Zhang X, Takenaka I. Cell proliferation and apoptosis with BCL-2 expression in renal cell carcinoma.
Urology 2000;56:5105.
50. Dimaras H, Gallie BL. The p75 NTR neurotrophin receptor is a tumor suppressor in human and murine
retinoblastoma development. Int J Cancer 2008;
122:20239.
51. Dimaras H, Khetan V, Halliday W, et al. Loss of RB1
induces non-proliferative retinoma; increasing genomic instability correlates with progression to retinoblastoma. Hum Mol Genet 2008;10:136372.
52. Higgins JP, Shinghal R, Gill H, et al. Gene expression patterns in renal cell carcinoma assessed by
complementary DNA microarray. Am J Pathol
2003;162:92532.
53. Hirata H, Hinoda Y, Matsuyama H, et al. Polymorphisms of DNA repair genes are associated with renal cell carcinoma. Biochem Biophys Res Commun
2006;342:105862.
54. Jones J, Otu H, Spentzos D, et al. Gene signatures
of progression and metastasis in renal cell cancer.
Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:57309.
55. Kosari F, Parker AS, Kube DM, et al. Clear cell renal
cell carcinoma: gene expression analyses identify
a potential signature for tumor aggressiveness.
Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:512839.
56. Sultmann H, von Heydebreck A, Huber W, et al.

Gene expression in kidney cancer is associated
with cytogenetic abnormalities, metastasis formation, and patient survival. Clin Cancer Res 2005;
11:64655.
57. Takahashi M, Rhodes DR, Furge KA, et al. Gene expression profiling of clear cell renal cell carcinoma:
gene identification and prognostic classification.
58. Vasselli JR, Shih JH, Iyengar SR, et al. Predicting
survival in patients with metastatic kidney cancer
by gene-expression profiling in the primary tumor.
59. Zhao H, Ljungberg B, Grankvist K, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts survival in conventional
renal cell carcinoma. PLoS Med 2006;3:e13.
60. Crispen PL, Uzzo RG. The natural history of untreated renal masses. BJU Int 2007;99:12037.
61. Lane BR, Samplaski MK, Herts BR, et al. Renal mass
biopsya renaissance? J Urol 2008;179:207.
62. Volpe A, Kachura JR, Geddie WR, et al. Techniques,
safety and accuracy of sampling of renal tumors by
fine needle aspiration and core biopsy. J Urol 2007;
178:37986.
63. Khan AA, Shergill IS, Quereshi S, et al. Percutaneous needle biopsy for indeterminate renal masses:
a national survey of UK consultant urologists. BMC
Urol 2007;7:10.
64. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Herts B, et al. Prospective
evaluation of fine needle aspiration of small, solid renal
masses: accuracy and morbidity. Urology 1997;50:
259.
65. Beland MD, Mayo-Smith WW, Dupuy DE, et al. Diagnostic yield of 58 consecutive imaging-guided biopsies of solid renal masses: should we biopsy all that
are indeterminate? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:
7927.
66. Maturen KE, Nghiem HV, Caoili EM, et al. Renal
mass core biopsy: accuracy and impact on clinical
management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:
56370.
67. Wunderlich H, Hindermann W, Al Mustafa AM, et al.
The accuracy of 250 fine needle biopsies of renal tumors. J Urol 2005;174:446.
68. Brierly RD, Thomas PJ, Harrison NW, et al. Evaluation of fine-needle aspiration cytology for renal
masses. BJU Int 2000;85:148.
69. Eshed I, Elias S, Sidi AA. Diagnostic value of CTguided biopsy of indeterminate renal masses. Clin
Radiol 2004;59:2627.
70. Hara I, Miyake H, Hara S, et al. Role of percutaneous
image-guided biopsy in the evaluation of renal
masses. Urol Int 2001;67:199202.
71. Lechevallier E, Andre M, Barriol D, et al. Fine-needle
percutaneous biopsy of renal masses with helical CT
guidance. Radiology 2000;216:50610.
633
634
Jewett & Zuniga

72. Neuzillet Y, Lechevallier E, Andre M, et al. Accuracy
and clinical role of fine needle percutaneous biopsy
with computerized tomography guidance of small
(less than 4.0 cm) renal masses. J Urol 2004;171:
18025.
73. Richter F, Kasabian NG, Irwin RJ Jr, et al. Accuracy
of diagnosis by guided biopsy of renal mass lesions
classified indeterminate by imaging studies. Urology
2000;55:34852.
74. Vasudevan A, Davies RJ, Shannon BA, et al. Incidental renal tumours: the frequency of benign
lesions and the role of preoperative core biopsy.
BJU Int 2006;97:9469.
75. Abe M, Saitoh M. Selective renal tumour biopsy
under ultrasonic guidance. Br J Urol 1992;70:711.
76. Auvert J, Abbou CC, Lavarenne V. Needle tract
seeding following puncture of renal oncocytoma.
Prog Clin Biol Res 1982;100:5978.
77. Gibbons RP, Bush WH Jr, Burnett LL. Needle tract
seeding following aspiration of renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 1977;118:8657.
78. Herts BR, Baker ME. The current role of percutaneous biopsy in the evaluation of renal masses. Semin
Urol Oncol 1995;13:25461.
79. Kiser GC, Totonchy M, Barry JM. Needle tract seeding after percutaneous renal adenocarcinoma aspiration. J Urol 1986;136:12923.
80. Shenoy PD, Lakhkar BN, Ghosh MK, et al. Cutaneous
seeding of renal carcinoma by Chiba needle aspiration biopsy. Case report. Acta Radiol 1991;32:502.
81. Wehle MJ, Grabstald H. Contraindications to needle
aspiration of a solid renal mass: tumor dissemination
by renal needle aspiration. J Urol 1986;136:4468.
82. Smith EH. Complications of percutaneous abdominal
fine-needle biopsy. Radiology 1991;178:2538
[review].
83. Cristallini EG, Paganelli C, Bolis GB. Role of fineneedle aspiration biopsy in the assessment of renal
masses. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:325.
84. Juul N, Torp-Pedersen S, Gronvall S, et al. Ultrasonically guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of renal
masses. J Urol 1985;133:57981.
85. Niceforo J, Coughlin BF. Diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma: value of fine-needle aspiration cytology in
patients with metastases or contraindications to nephrectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;161:13035.
86. Rybicki FJ, Shu KM, Cibas ES, et al. Percutaneous
biopsy of renal masses: sensitivity and negative predictive value stratified by clinical setting and size of
masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:12817.
87. Renshaw AA, Lee KR, Madge R, et al. Accuracy of
fine needle aspiration in distinguishing subtypes of
renal cell carcinoma. Acta Cytol 1997;41:98794.
88. Cajulis RS, Katz RL, Dekmezian R, et al. Fine needle aspiration biopsy of renal cell carcinoma. Cytologic parameters and their concordance with
histology and flow cytometric data. Acta Cytol
1993;37:36772.
89. Wood BJ, Khan MA, McGovern F, et al. Imaging
guided biopsy of renal masses: indications, accuracy and impact on clinical management. J Urol
1999;161:14704.
90. Silverman SG, Deuson TE, Kane N, et al. Percutaneous abdominal biopsy: cost-identification analysis.
Radiology 1998;206:42935.
91. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell
carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based
on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN
score. J Urol 2002;168:2395400.
92. Walther MM, Choyke PL, Glenn G, et al. Renal cancer in families with hereditary renal cancer: prospective analysis of a tumor size threshold for
renal parenchymal sparing surgery. J Urol 1999;
161:14759.
93. 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;166:548.
94. Mattar K, Basiuk J, Finelli A, et al. Active surveillance
of small renal masses: a prospective multi-centre
Canadian trial. Presented at the Annual EAU Congress, Milan, Italy. March 2629, 2008.
The Medical and

Oncological Rationale
for Par tial Nephrectomy
for the Treatment of T1
Renal Cor tical Tumors
Paul Russo, MD, FACSa,*, William Huang, MDb
KEYWORDS
Renal cancer Partial nephrectomy
Chronic kidney disease
RENAL CORTICAL TUMORS: A DIVERSITY

OF TUMORS AND POTENTIAL THREATS
Renal cortical tumors (RCTs) are members of
a complex family with unique histologies,
cytogenetic defects, and variable metastatic potentials ranging from the benign oncocytoma, to
the indolent papillary and chromophobe carcinomas, to the more malignant conventional clear
carcinoma.1 At our center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), the conventional
clear cell tumor accounts for 90% of all metastatic RCTs but only 54% of the renal tumors undergoing resection. Two groups of patients with
RCTs currently exist. The first group consists of
patients with symptomatic, large, locally advanced tumors often presenting with regional adenopathy, adrenal invasion, and extension into
the renal vein or inferior vena cava. Despite radical nephrectomy in conjunction with regional
lymphadenectomy and adrenalectomy, progression to distant metastasis and death from disease occurs in approximately 30% of these
patients. For patients presenting with isolated
metastatic disease, metastasectomy in carefully
selected patients has been associated with
long-term survival.2 For patients with diffuse metastatic disease and an acceptable performance
status, cytoreductive nephrectomy, compared
to cytokine therapy alone, may add several additional months of survival.3 Cytoreductive nephrectomy also prepares patients for integrated
treatment, now in neoadjuvant and adjuvant
a
Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Weill Cornell College of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, USA
b
Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, 150 East 32nd Street, Suite 200, New York,
NY 10016, USA
E-mail address: russop@MSKCC.org (P. Russo).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 635643

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.008
The medical and oncologic rationale for partial nephrectomy has evolved over the last 10 years and
is based on the following factors: an enhanced understanding of renal tumor histology, the proven oncological equivalency of partial and radical
nephrectomy for T1 renal cancers, and new concerns regarding chronic kidney disease (CKD) and
its potential adverse impact on cardiovascular health
and overall survival. Historically, partial nephrectomy
was reserved for patients with tumor in a solitary kidney, bilateral renal tumors, or tumor in a patient with
underlying medical diseases of the kidney or renal insufficiency. For the last 15 years, the concept of partial nephrectomy for patients with a renal tumor and
a normal contralateral kidney (kidney sparing or
nephron sparing), has generated increasing acceptance both in the United States and abroad, and,
over the last 5 years, has crystallized as the treatment of choice for small renal masses. In this article
we discuss the oncological and medical rationale for
partial nephrectomy as the treatment of choice
whenever possible for T1 (<7 cm) renal tumors.
636
Russo & Huang

clinic trials, with the new multitargeted tyrosine
kinase inhibitors (sunitinib, sorafenib) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (temsirolimus, RAD001).
The second group of RCTs consists of small renal tumors (median tumor size <4 cm, T1a) often
incidentally discovered in asymptomatic patients
during imaging for nonspecific abdominal or musculoskeletal complaints or during unrelated cancer
care. A greater than 90% survival rate, depending
on the tumor histology,4 is expected following partial or radical nephrectomy. Despite vast improvements in modern CT, ultrasound, and MRI imaging
of the kidney, these studies are nonspecific and
between 16.4% and 23% of patients undergoing
tumor resection are ultimately found to have a benign lesion, including angiomyolipoma, oncocytoma, metanephric adenoma, or hemorrhagic
cyst.5,6 Although CT-guided percutanous renal biopsy can easily be performed, the differentiation
between a benign and malignant tumor and the
determination of tumor histologic subtypes by current radiological and biopsy techniques alone or in
combination is only 70% accurate.7 Active research to determine if immunohistochemical and
cytogenetic techniques can substantially improve
the accuracy of RCT percutaneous biopsy is ongoing. An alternative strategy to image the more
malignant clear cell carcinoma with a specific radio-labeled antibody that reacts to carbonic anhydrase 9 124I-cG250 is under active investigation
and has shown a high sensitivity and specificity
in preliminary studies. This immunopositron
emission tomographic scan may play an important
role in the future for planning surgeries, selecting
for active surveillance, determining the response
to novel local and systemic therapies, and evaluating extent of disease.8
PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY IS AS EFFECTIVE

AS RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY FOR T1 TUMORS
Contemporary surgical oncology (eg, for breast
cancer, soft tissue sarcoma) now favors surgical
approaches that preserve organs and limbs whenever possible, and is often used in conjunction with
adjuvant therapies, with resulting local tumor control and long-term survival equivalent to their more
radical counterparts. Partial nephrectomy, once
used only for the essential indications, is now considered a preferred alternative to radical nephrectomy for patients with T1 tumors, normal renal
function, and two intact kidneys.9 Studies from
the United States and abroad have shown that
partial nephrectomy for tumors of 4 cm or less provides equivalent tumor control compared with
radical nephrectomy.10,11 Previous deterrents to
partial nephrectomy, including proximity to collecting system or major segmental vessels,

endophytic tumor location, concern for tumor multifocality, and the desire for a 1-cm surgical margin, are now routinely managed effectively in the
operating room. Tumor localization using intraoperative ultrasound for endophytic and multifocal
tumors,12 suture repair of the collecting system
and blood vessels, and closed suction retroperitoneal drainage, has made open partial nephrectomy a highly effective operation. Complication
rates are less than 10% and mostly relate to
prolonged urinary fistula with only the rare need
for reoperation or endoscopic interventions.13 Renoprotective measures of ice slush and mannitol
seem effective in limiting damage to the kidney
with normalization of renal function by 12 months
postoperatively. Prolonged ischemia time, increasing blood loss, and partial nephrectomy in
a solitary kidney, all indicators of a more challenging operation, are associated with early declines in
glomerular filtration rate (GFR) but not long-term
damage.14 It is our practice to perform partial nephrectomy with no ischemia (no renal artery
cross-clamping) whenever possible to limit potential glomerular damage, which may not be detectable by serum markers or formulas that estimate
kidney function. If renal artery clamping is required
to limit blood loss during the resection of a large
tumor or an endophytic tumor, mannitol (12.5
gm/250 mL of saline) and ice slush are routinely
used with every attempt to limit cold ischemia to
less than 30 minutes. In addition, careful visual
inspection of the kidney and the use of intraoperative ultrasound address the small likelihood (<5%)
of a previously unrecognized tumor satellite, which
can also be excised at the same operation.15
Recent studies have demonstrated that gross
resection of all tumors, as assessed by the operating surgeon, even in the presence of only microscopically negative surgical margins, provides
excellent local tumor control without an increased
risk of local tumor recurrence and without the need
for a 1-cm margin of surrounding renal parenchyma. One-centimeter margins are easily achievable goal for an exophytic tumor, but often not
technically feasible for a renal sinus tumor, a juxtahilar tumor, or an intraparenchymal tumor. Complete resection of RCTs in these less-accessible
locations increases the percentage of patients eligible for kidney-sparing operations and renders an
excellent prognosis with a high likelihood (>90%)
of freedom from local, regional, and metastatic recurrence,16 particularly because a significant percentage of patients with central tumors have
indolent or benign histology (30.2%).17 In the event
of a positive microscopic surgical margin on final
Rationale for Partial Nephrectomy

pathology, previous recommendations for a completion radical nephrectomy appear unnecessary. In recently published study of 1344 partial
nephrectomies from MSKCC and the Mayo Clinic,
77 patients (5.5%) were found to have positive surgical margins on final pathology. This was more
likely to occur during the resection of a tumor in
a solitary kidney or one in a technically challenging
location. Although the surgeon should make every
effort to achieve a complete resection at the time
of a partial nephrectomy, a final pathologic positive surgical margin was not associated with an increased likelihood of local tumor recurrence or
metastatic disease.18
Partial nephrectomy has been safely extended
to tumors of 7 cm or less, when technically feasible, with disease-free intervals equivalent to those
in similar patients treated with radical nephrectomy across all histologic subtypes.9,11 MSKCC
investigators compared the results of 45 patients
undergoing partial nephrectomy to 151 patients
undergoing radical nephrectomy (22 of whom
were originally slated to have a partial nephrectomy but were converted to radical nephrectomy)
for T1b (47 cm) conventional clear cell carcinomas. Disease-free survival between the groups
were no different, but the serum creatinine levels,
a relatively crude indicator of overall renal function,
were substantially better in patients undergoing
partial nephrectomy at 3, 6, and 12 months.19
Clinical local recurrence in the partial nephrectomy bed is a rare event (<1%) and is often associated with a grossly positive surgical margin at the
time of the initial resection, which is more likely to
occur in patients with multifocal tumors or a large
tumor in a solitary kidney. A recent publication
from Pahernik and colleagues20 from Mainz, Germany, confirmed the oncological efficacy of partial
nephrectomy in tumors larger than 4 cm. New
tumor formation in the operated kidney is an uncommon event, occurring at a lifetime risk, in the
absence of familial or hereditary syndromes, in
less than 5% of patients.14 Following either partial
nephrectomy or radical nephrectomy, the contralateral kidney also retains a lifetime risk of approximately 5% for the development of new tumor
formation necessitating lifelong surveillance.21 At
some finite point, likely measured in years, the
risk of a new ipsilateral or contralateral tumor formation exceeds the risk of metastatic disease
development from the index tumor. In any case,
long-term surveillance with a yearly renal imaging
study (CT, ultrasonography, or MRI) and chest radiograph (for clear cell, chromophobe, papillary renal cancer, but not benign oncocytoma or
metanephric adenoma) to assess local or systemic
recurrence is recommended. With this approach,
disease-free survival rates of greater than 90%

are achieved using partial nephrectomy for T1
RCTs across all histologic subtypes.22
KIDNEY TUMOR PATIENTS AND UNRECOGNIZED

MEDICAL RENAL DISEASE
A historical misconception is that radical nephrectomy, although likely to cause a detectable and
permanent rise in serum creatinine because of
the sacrifice of normal renal parenchyma not involved by tumor, will not cause serious long-term
side effects as long as the patient has a normal
contralateral kidney. The renal transplant literature
is often cited as the clinical evidence to support
this view since patients undergoing donor nephrectomy have not been reported to have higher
rates of kidney failure requiring dialysis or resulting
in death.23 However, distinct differences between
renal donors and renal tumor patients exist. Donors tend to be carefully selected, screened for
medical comorbidities, and are generally young
(age 40 or less).24,25 In contrast, renal tumor patients are not screened, are older (mean age 61
years), and often have significant comorbidities
that can affect kidney function, including metabolic syndrome, hypertension, obesity, vascular
disease, and diabetes, alone or in combination.
As patients age, particularly beyond the age of
60, nephrons atrophy and GFRs progressively
decreases.26
A recent clinical and pathologic study from the
Harvard Medical School examined the nontumor-bearing kidney of patients undergoing resection of RCTs and demonstrated a far greater
degree of unsuspected underlying renal disease
in kidney tumor patients than previously appreciated.27 The nonneoplastic renal tissue in 110 nephrectomy specimens, including 67 clear cell
carcinomas of which 39 were less than 5 cm,
were correlated to the patients clinical history.
Only 10% of patients had completely normal adjacent renal tissue and 28% were found to have vascular sclerotic changes. In the remaining 62% of
cases, evidence of significant intrinsic renal abnormalities, including diabetic nephropathy, glomerular hypertrophy, mesangial expansion, and diffuse
glomerosclerosis, was noted. In this study, 91 patients (83%) underwent radical nephrectomy for
the treatment of their tumors. This study indicates
that the loss of functional nephrons during radical
nephrectomy, coupled with pre-existing renal diseases, which may or may not be clinically apparent
but is present at the pathologic level in the vast
majority of patients, causes the worsening of overall renal function.
637
638
Russo & Huang

CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE IS AN INDEPENDENT
RISK FACTOR FOR CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
CKD is increasingly viewed as a major public
health problem in the United States. Currently it
is estimated that there are 19 million adults in the
United States in the early stages of CKD and that
by the year 2030, 2 million will be in need of
chronic dialysis or renal transplantation.28 CKD is
defined as a GFR of less than 60 mL/min/1.73m2.
Traditional risk factors for CKD include age greater
than 60, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular
disease, and family history of renal disease. The
prevalence and incidence of kidney failure requiring either dialysis or renal transplantation have
increased from 1988 to 2004. Also, a significant
trend has been a 10% increase in the prevalance
of earlier stages of CKD, as indicated by
decreased GFR, increased proteinuria, or both.
These findings were determined by the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, which
compared 15,488 adults from 1988 to 1994 to
13,233 adults from 1999 to 2004. A higher rate of
diabetes and hypertension during a later time
frame in the United States is thought to be responsible for the increase in earlier stages of CKD.
Recommendations for assessing patients at increased risk for CKD include measurement of
urine albumin and estimation of GFR using equations based on the level of serum creatinine.29 In
2003, the National Kidney Foundation; the American Heart Association; and the Seventh Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure
classified CKD as an independent cardiovascular
risk factor.3034 Certain serum factors, including elevated inflammatory and prothrombotic factors
(C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, IL-6, and IL-8)
and decreased hemoglobin levels and lipoprotein
A may mechanistically contribute to the elevated
cardiovascular risk. Therefore, medical interventions designed to modify well-known traditional
risk factors, such as systolic blood pressure
greater than 140 mm Hg, diabetes, cigarette
smoking, high-density lipoprotein less than 40,
low-density lipoprotein more than 130, body
mass index over 30, physical inactivity, and left
ventricular hypertrophy, may be effective in reducing the cardiovascular mortality risk in CKD.
Two widely used formulas, the Modification in
Diet and Renal Disease (MDRD) equation and
the Cockcroft-Gault equation, are superior to serum creatinine alone in estimating the GFR.29
These formulas have been extensively evaluated
in populations of patients, including blacks,
whites, and Asians; people with and without diabetes or kidney disease; and transplant donors.
Both equations are more accurate in evaluating

kidney function in patients with CKD, as opposed
to younger patients, those with type 1 diabetes
without microalbuminuria, or healthy potential
kidney donors.35
An estimated GFR of less than 60 mL/min/1.73
m2, stage 3 CKD, is associated with a graded increase in the risk of progression to end-stage
kidney disease and premature death caused by
cardiovascular disease. A clinician can quickly calculate the estimated GFR using a Web site that
only requires patient age, sex, race, and serum
creatinine (http://www.nephron.com/MDRD_GFR.
cgi). In our practice, the routine use of the MDRD
equation to estimate GFR has become an essential part of the initial evaluation of the renal tumor
patient and is critical for surgical planning and
counseling.36
The adverse clinical impact of a decline in estimated GFR was reported by investigators at Kaiser Permanente in California who estimated the
longitudinal GFR in 1,120,295 patients between
1996 and 2000 who had not undergone dialysis
or kidney transplantation. The investigators examined the multivariable association between
estimated GFR and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. The median patient age was 52 years, 55% of the patients were
women, and median follow-up was 2.84 years.
The risk of death increased as the estimated
GFR decreased below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 with
the adjusted hazard ratios of 1.2 (GFR 4559 mL/
min/1.73 m2), 1.8 (GFR 3044 mL/min/1.73 m2),
3.2 (GFR 1529 mL/min/1.73 m2), and 5.9 (GFR
<15 mL/min/1.73 m2) respectively. The adjusted
risk of hospitalization followed a similar pattern.37
The link between CKD and cardiovascular risk factors was also reported by Foley and colleagues,38
who analyzed data from 15,837 noninstitutionalized adults from 1988 to 1994 in the Third National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Data
were gathered on nine cardiovascular risk factors
(smoking, obesity, hypertension, high total cholesterol, C-reactive protein, glycosylated hemoglobin, homocysteine levels, low hemoglobin, high
urinary albumin to creatinine ratio) and estimated
GFR. Estimated GFR was greater than 60 mL/
min/1.73 m2 in 93.3% of patients, between 30
and 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 (stage 3 CKD) in 6.2%,
and less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (stage 4 and
5 CKD) in 0.5%. As kidney function deteriorated,
the percentage of subjects with two associated
cardiovascular risk factors increased from 34.7%
(stage 1 and 2 CKD), to 83.6% (for stage 3), to
100% for stage 4 and 5 subjects. Patients with
CKD were far more likely to require medical interventions to treat cardiovascular disease than

those with normal renal function. The low prevalence of patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD is attributable to their 5-year survival rates of only 30%.38
PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY PRESERVES

RENAL FUNCTION
Data comparing late renal functional and oncological results in over 450 patients undergoing partial
nephrectomy or radical nephrectomy for tumors
measuring less than 4 cm were first reported
from the Mayo Clinic in 2000 and from MSKCC
in 2002. The Mayo Clinic study showed that
patients undergoing radical nephrectomy were
more likely to have serum creatinine levels elevated to more than 2.0 ng/mL and proteinuria.39
The MSKCC study resulted in similar findings
even when study patients were carefully matched
for associated risk factors, including diabetes,
smoking history, preoperative serum creatinine,
and American Society of Anesthesiologists
score.40 In both studies, oncological outcomes
were highly favorable (>90% survival rates)
whether partial nephrectomy or radical nephrectomy was done. Investigators from MSKCC later
created a postoperative prognostic nomogram
for renal insufficiency that used percent changes
in kidney volume as calculated from CT scans,
preoperative serum creatinine, American Society
of Anesthesiologists score, patient age, and sex.
In this study, serum creatinine of greater than 2
was described as renal insufficiency. The investigators studied 161 patients undergoing partial
nephrectomy and 857 patients undergoing radical
nephrectomy. A total of 111 patients (10.9%), of
which 105 underwent radical nephrectomy
(95%), experienced renal insufficiency at a median
of 14.4 months following surgery. Using a multivariate analysis, patient age, sex, preoperative creatinine, and percent change in kidney volume were
all significant factors associated with freedom
from renal insufficiency with preoperative serum
creatinine greater than 1.0 contributing nearly 70
points to the nomogram.41 Skeptics pointed out
that these studies failed to demonstrate an increased risk of dialysis in the radical nephrectomy
patients but their comments failed to mention the
cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated
with CKD for patients not yet requiring dialysis.
MSKCC investigators recently analyzed their
partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy experience using the MDRD abbreviated formula to
estimate GFR in a retrospective cohort study of
662 patients with a normal serum creatinine and
two healthy kidneys that underwent either elective
partial nephrectomy or radical nephrectomy for an
RCT 4 cm or less in diameter. Data was analyzed
using two threshold definitions of CKD: a GFR

less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a GFR less than
45 mL/min/1.73 m2. To the surprise of the investigators, 171 patients (26%) had pre-existing CKD
(GFR <60) before operation despite two intact,
normal-appearing kidneys and a serum creatinine
within normal limits. After surgery, the 3-year probability of freedom from new onset of GFR less than
60 was 80% after partial nephrectomy but only
35% after radical nephrectomy. Corresponding
values for 3-year probability of GFR less than 45,
a more severe level of CKD, was 95% for partial
nephrectomy and 64% for radical nephrectomy.
Multivariable analysis indicated that radical nephrectomy remained an independent risk factor
for the development of new-onset CKD.42 Also,
a detectable decline in renal function also occurred in the patients undergoing partial nephrectomy. A recent study from the Mayo Clinic queried
their nephrectomy registry between 1989 and
2003 and identified 648 patients treated with radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy for a solitary renal tumor less than or equal to 4 cm
(excluding perinephric fat, nodal, and distant metastases patients) and a normal contralateral kidney. Overall survival was calculated in 327
patients younger than 65 at the time of operation
and it was found that radical nephrectomy was
significantly associated with an increased risk of
death, which persisted after adjusting for year of
surgery, diabetes at presentation, CharlsonRomano index, and tumor histology.43 These studies, when taken together, raise serious concerns
regarding the long-term effects of radical nephrectomy, particularly when used in a population of
patients with small RCTs at low risk for the development of metastatic disease and a long anticipated
survival who remain at risk for the common aforementioned medical diseases.
Currently, active investigation, using both institutional databases and national databases, is underway to confirm these initial reports regarding
increased cardiovascular events and decreased
overall survival when radical nephrectomy rather
than partial nephrectomy is used in the treatment
of small, favorable-prognostic renal masses. This
important data strongly suggest that routine radical nephrectomy for small renal tumors is unjustified on oncological grounds and has potential
adverse consequences on the long-term cardiovascular and renal health of the patient. Shortterm end points stressed by some investigators
in the recent laparoscopic literature regarding
length of hospital stay, analgesic requirements
postoperatively, and cosmetic elements while advocating laparoscopic radical nephrectomy must
now be tempered with the new concerns that
639
640
Russo & Huang

radical nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal tumors, by either open or laparoscopic techniques, may worsen or cause CKD and decrease
overall patient survival.
PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY IS UNDERUSED

In 2008, more than 54,390 patients will develop
RCTs in the United States, according to estimates,44 and approximately 70% of those will be
incidentally detected at 4 cm or less, a size considered amenable to partial nephrectomy. At many
academic centers, partial nephrectomy comprises
60% to 70% of the operations for RCTs. Yet, when
investigators took a cross-sectional view of clinical
practice using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample,
they reported that only 7.5% of kidney tumor operations in the United States from 1988 to 2002 were
partial nephrectomies.45 Using the Surveillance
Epidemiology and End Results database, investigators from the University of Michigan reported
that from 2001, only 20% of all RCTs between 2
and 4 cm were treated by partial nephrectomy
despite an already well-established literature supporting partial nephrectomy.46 In England, a similar
underuse of partial nephrectomy was reported in
2002 with only 108 (4%) partial nephrectomies
out of 2671 nephrectomies performed.47
Many factors likely account for this reluctance to
integrate partial nephrectomies into widespread
clinic practice, despite mounting evidence of the
virtues of partial nephrectomies both for local tumor control and preservation of long-term renal
function. Open kidney surgery as a common element of training programs has been markedly reduced since the introduction of percutaneous,
ureteroscopic, and extracorporeal approaches
for the treatment of kidney stones over the last
20 years. Many of the surgical techniques employed in partial nephrectomy for tumors, including vascular isolation, ice slush, and suture repair
of the collecting system, emanated from operations initially designed to treat complex kidney
(staghorn) stones. Possibly, because of demographics of RCTs and regional referral patterns,
only certain centers have had the numbers of
extensive open renal tumor operations sufficient
enough for training residents and staff.
The development of minimally invasive laparoscopic renal tumor surgery and tumor ablative
techniques, such as radiofrequency and cryoablation, has been ongoing for 17 years by committed
investigators in the United States and abroad. The
advantages of cosmetic incisions, decreased perioperative analgesic requirements, and more rapid
return to normal activity were emphasized in early
publications and short-term oncologic end points
seemed equivalent to those of their open-surgical

counterparts. However, at centers with expertise
in both open and minimally invasive surgery approaches for RCT, published experiences revealed inconsistencies in the management of
small renal tumors. Open surgeons were more
likely to perform partial nephrectomy, and laparoscopic surgeons were more likely to perform radical nephrectomy. These reports suggested that
skills related to minimally invasive surgery were
being acquired through surgery involving small renal tumors (<4 cm), despite the above-described
clinical data that this was surgical overkill and deleterious to the patients overall renal function.48
Unique issues relative to minimally invasive surgery, such as the problem of tumor-bearing kidney
retrieval (ie, morcellation vs. an open extraction incision for removal) were debated in the literature.
The case load required to extend the surgical limits
for minimally invasive surgery was not known and
the decision to perform an open kidney procedure
rather than a minimally invasive kidney procedure
often depended upon the relative surgical expertise of the individual surgeon rather than more
clearly defined guidelines relating to tumor size
and concerns about future renal function.
By 2000, because of the well-described benefits
of partial nephrectomy, several minimally invasive
surgery groups began concerted efforts to develop laparoscopic partial nephrectomy techniques that would closely simulate the open
procedure, initially with smaller, exophytic renal tumors and, with time and increasing experience,
with more complex centrally located or cystic renal
tumors. Valiant attempts to duplicate the renal
protective effects of cold ischemia, readily obtained in open partial nephrectomy, were reported
and included cold renal arterial and ureteral perfusions and, recently, laparoscopic ice slush placement. Nonetheless, the majority of laparoscopic
partial nephrectomies (many of which are complex) continue to be performed under warm ischemic conditions with the hope that rapid completion
of the operation will limit any ischemic effects on
the kidney. Even for these expert surgeons, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is currently described as a complex or advanced operation
with published complication rates that are three
to four times higher than those for their open counterparts.49,50 Interestingly, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy teams report similar rates of benign
lesions resected (20%30%) and similar beneficial
effects on overall renal function as described above in the open partial nephrectomy
experience.
Recently, investigators from the Mayo Clinic,
Cleveland Clinic, and Johns Hopkins pooled their

data on 1800 partial nephrectomies, of which 771
were performed laparoscopically and 1028 were
performed open for T1 tumors between 1998 and
2005. Even though the surgeons at these centers
were experts in their respective laparoscopic and
open operations, careful case selection was apparent. Open partial nephrectomy patients had
larger tumors that were more likely centrally located and malignant; were at higher risk of perioperative complications as defined by their older
age, increased comorbidities, and decreased performance status; and had decreased renal function at the time of operation, all of which may
have contributed to longer hospital stays for
open partial nephrectomy (5.8 days) versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (3.3 days). Patients
in the laparoscopic partial nephrectomy group
were more likely to have elective indications than
imperative or absolute indications for partial nephrectomy yet laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
was associated with longer ischemic time; more
postoperative complications, particularly urologic;
and increased number of subsequent procedures
to treat complications. This comprehensive study
leaves little doubt that the laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is a technically challenging operation,
even in the hands of such experts, where careful
case selection may decrease the chance of surgical and urological complications.51
As the virtues of partial nephrectomy, by any
technique, are apparent, an open alternative to
laparoscopy is a miniflank supra11th rib incision,
which can be in the range of 8 to 10 cm. This approach leaves an incision only 1 to 2 cm larger
than the extraction incisions for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy or the hand-assist ports for
hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, avoids the
painful rib resection, and is associated with a low
rate of incidence of flank bulge and hernias
(<5%) compared with more traditional open flank
operations (30%40%). This approach may allow
urologists trained in open surgery to perform partial nephrectomy with lesser patient morbidity
and without the more elaborate training and learning curve associated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.52 For patients with small renal tumors,
the long-lasting value of renal preservation by partial nephrectomy, whether performed by laparoscopic or open techniques, now far supersedes
the rapid recovery offered by laparoscopic radical
nephrectomy.
Also under active investigation are the renal tumor ablative modalities of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and percutaneous and
laparoscopic cryoablation.53 These are offered often to patients who are old or comorbidly ill. With
short overall follow-up and lack of pathologic
resection to confirm the completeness of the ablation, it is not known whether ablation is as effective
as surgical resection and whether or not the radiological images postablation represent complete or
partial tumor destruction or simply a renal tumor,
partially treated, not in active growth. In a recent
report from the Cleveland Clinic, which has substantial experience in both radiofrequency ablation
and cryoablation, documented recurrence rates
for cryoablation were 13 of 175 cases (7.4%) and
26 of 104 cases (25%) for radiofrequency ablation
whose mean preablation tumor sizes were 3.0 and
2.8 cm respectively. Repeat ablations were performed in 26 patients but 12 patients were not candidates for repeat ablation because of large tumor
size, disease progression, or repeat ablation failure. Of these, 10 patients underwent attempted resection with only 2 patients being eligible for partial
nephrectomy (open) and 7 patients requiring radical nephrectomy. One operation was aborted.
From this data, it appears that a failed ablative procedure in a patient originally eligible for a partial
nephrectomy, likely translates into a radical nephrectomy as salvage procedure because of
extensive postablation scarring.54 Carefully
designed ablate and resect clinical protocols
need to be done, much like those done in the
1990s with cryotherapy and localized prostate
cancer, to determine the true effectiveness of
these approaches. For this same population of elderly patients or comorbidly ill patients with small
renal tumors, active surveillance is increasingly
being suggested as an alternative to invasive
treatments.55,56
SUMMARY
The value of partial nephrectomy in the management of small renal cortical tumors is gaining wider
recognition thanks to (1) enhanced understanding
of the biology of renal cortical tumors; (2) better
knowledge about tumor size and stage migration
to small tumors at the time of presentation; (3)
studies indicating the oncologic efficacy of kidney-sparing surgery, whether performed by open
or laparoscopic techniques, and (4) increasing
awareness of the wide prevalence of CKD and its
associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The argument by many minimally invasive surgeons for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and
its associated rapid convalescence and cosmesis
is not sufficiently compelling when iatrogenic initiation or worsening of CKD is the result. The overzealous use of radical nephrectomy for small renal
tumors, whether by open or laparoscopic techniques, must now be considered detrimental to
the long-term health and safety of the patient
641
642
Russo & Huang

with a small RCT. Widespread training in partial
nephrectomy and enhanced use, whether by
open or laparoscopic approaches, is clearly indicated in the United States and abroad.
REFERENCES
1. Linehan WM, Walther MM, Zbar B. The genetic basis
of cancer of the kidney. J Urol 2003;170:216372.
2. Russo P, Snyder M, Vickers A, et al. Cytoreductive
nephrectomy and nephrectomy/complete metastasectomy for renal cancer. The Scientific World Urology 2007;2:4252.
3. Flanigan RC, Salmon SE, Blumenstein BA, et al. Nephrectomy followed by interferon alfa-2b compared
with interferon alfa-2b alone for metastatic renalcell cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;345:16559.
4. Russo P. Renal cell carcinoma: presentation, staging, and surgical treatment. Semin Oncol 2000;27:
16076.
5. McKiernan JM, Yossepowitch O, Kattan MW, et al.
Partial nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors: pathological findings and impact on outcome. Urology
2002;60:10039.
6. Snyder ME, Bach A, Kattan MW, et al. Incidence of
benign lesions for clinically localized renal masses
<7cm in radiological diameter: influence of gender.
J Urol 2006;176:23916.
7. Dechet CB, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, et al. Prospective
analysis of computerized tomography and needle
biopsy with permanent sectioning to determine the
nature of solid renal masses in adults. J Urol 2003;
169:714.
8. Divgi C, Pandit-Taskar N, Jungbluth AA, et al. Preoperative characterization of clear cell renal carcinoma
using iodine-124 labeled antibody chimeric G250
(1241cG250) and positron emission tomography
(PET): phase 1 surgical validation in patients with renal masses. Lancet Oncol 2007;4:30410.
9. Russo P, Goetzl M, Simmons R, et al. Partial nephrectomy: the rationale for expanding the indications. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:6807.
10. Lee CT, Katz J, Shi WW, et al. Surgical management
of renal tumors of 4 cm or less in a contemporary
cohort. J Urol 2000;163:7306.
11. Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. Nephron
carcinoma between 4 and 7 cm resulting in outcome
similar to radical nephrectomy. J Urol 2004;171:
106670.
12. Gilbert BR, Russo P, Zirinsky K, et al. Intraoperative
sonography. Application in renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 1988;139:5824.
13. Stephanson A, Hakimian A, Snyder ME, et al. Complications of radical and partial nephrectomy in
a large contemporary cohort. J Urol 2004;171:
1304.
14. Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Serio A, et al. Temporary renal ischemia during nephron-sparing surgery
is associated with short-term but not long-term impairment of renal function. J Urol 2006;176(4 Pt 1):
133943.
15. Richstone L, Scherr DS, Reuter VR, et al. Multifocal
renal cortical tumors: frequency, associated clinicopathological features, and impact on survival. J Urol
2004;171:61520.
16. Tismit MO, Razin JP, Thionunn N, et al. Prospective
study of the safety margins in partial nephrectomy:
intraoperative assessment and contribution of frozen
section analysis. Urology 2006;67:9236.
17. Schachter LR, Bach AM, Snyder ME, et al. The
impact of tumor location on histological subtype of
renal cortical tumors. BJU Int 2006;98(1):636.
18. Yossepowitch O, Thompson RH, Leibovitch BC,
et al. Predictors and oncological outcomes following
positive surgical margins at partial nephrectomy.
J Urol 2008;179(6):215863.
19. Dash A, Vickers AJ, Schachter LR, et al. Comparison of outcomes in elective partial vs. radical
nephrectomy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma of
47 cm. BJU Int 2006;97:93945.
20. Pahernik S, Roos F, Rohrig B, et al. Elective nephron
sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma larger than
4 cm. J Urol 2008;179:714.
21. Patel MI, Simmons R, Kattan MW, et al. Long term
follow up of bilateral sporadic renal tumors. Urology
2003;61:9215.
22. Kattan MW, Reuter V, Motzer RJ, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell. J Urol 2001;
166:637.
23. Najaraian JS, Chavers BM, McHugh LE, et al. 20
years or more of follow-up of living kidney donors.
Lancet 1992;340:80710.
24. Fehrman-Ekholm I, Duner F, Brink B, et al. No evidence of loss of kidney function in living kidney
donors from cross sectional follow up. Transplantation 2001;72:4449.
25. Goldfarb DA, Matin SF, Braun WE, et al. Renal outcome 25 years after donor nephrectomy. J Urol
2001;166:20437.
26. Kaplan C, Pasternack B, Shah H, et al. Age-related
incidence of sclerotic glomeruli in human kidneys.
Am J Pathol 1975;80:22734.
27. Bijol V, Mendez GP, Hurwitz S, et al. Evaluation of the
nonneoplastic pathology in tumor nephrectomy
specimens: predicting the risk of progressive renal
failure. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:57584.
28. Coresh J, Selvin E, Stevens LA, et al. Prevalence of
chronic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA
2007;298:203847.
29. Stevens LA, Coresh J, Green T, et al. Assessing
kidney functionmeasured and estimated glomerular filtration rate. N Engl J Med 2006;354:
247383.

30. Sarnak M, Leavey AS, Schoolwerth AC, et al. Kidney
disease as a risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease: a statement from the American
Heart Association Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease. High blood pressure research, clinical cardiology, and epidemiology and prevention.
Circulation 2003;108:215469.
31. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on TN
Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of
High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA
2003;289:256072.
32. Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Imitative. K/DOQI
clinical guideline for chronic kidney disease evaluation, classification, stratification. 51:5246. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39(Suppl 2):3947.
33. Ritz E, McClellan WW. Overview: increased cardiovascular risk in patients with minor renal dysfunction:
an emerging issue with far-reaching consequences.
J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:5136.
34. Shlipak MG, Fried LF, Cushman M, et al. Cardiovascular mortality risk in chronic kidney disease. JAMA
2005;293:173745.
35. Poggio ED, Wang X, Greene T, et al. Performance of
the modification of diet in renal disease and Cockcroft-Gault equations in the estimation of GFR in
health and in chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc
Nephrol 2005;16:45966.
36. Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, et al. Chronic Kidney
Disease Epidemiology Collaboration. Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification
of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating
glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2006;
145(4):24754.
37. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, et al. Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events,
and hospitalization. N Engl J Med 2004;351:
1296305.
38. Foley RN, Wang C, Collins AJ. Cardiovascular risk
factor profiles and kidney function stage in the US
general population: the NHANES 3 study. Mayo
Clin Proc 2005;80:12707.
39. Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, et al. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs. nephron-sparing
surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contra lateral kidney. Mayo
Clin Proc 2000;75:123642.
40. McKiernan J, Simmons R, Katz J, et al. Natural history of chronic renal insufficiency after partial and
radical nephrectomy. Urology 2002;59:81620.
41. Sorbellini M, Kattan MW, Snyder ME, et al. Prognostic nomogram for renal insufficiency after radical or
partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2006;176:4726.
42. Huang WC, Levey AS, Serio AM, et al. Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal
cortical tumors: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet
Oncol 2006;7:73540.
43. Thompson HR, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, et al. Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be associated with decreased overall survival compared
to partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2008;179:46873.
2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:7196.
45. Hollenback BK, Tash DA, Miller DC, et al. National
utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal
cell carcinoma: a case of underutilization? Urology
2006;67:2549.
46. Miller DC, Hollingsworth JM, Hafez KS, et al. Partial
nephrectomy for small renal masses. An emerging
quality of care concern? J Urol 2006;175:8537.
47. Nuttail M, Cathcart P, van der Meulen J, et al. A description of radical nephrectomy practice and outcomes in
England. 19952002. BJU Int 2005;96:5861.
48. Scherr DS, Ng C, Munver R, et al. Practice patterns
among urologic surgeons treating localized renal
cell carcinoma in the laparoscopic age: technology
vs. oncology. Urology 2003;62:100711.
49. Ramani AP, Desai MM, Steinberg AP, et al. Complications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 200
cases. J Urol 2005;173:427.
50. Kim FJ, Rha KH, Hernandez F, et al. Laparoscopic
radical versus partial nephrectomy: assessment of
complications. J Urol 2003;170:40811.
51. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, et al. Comparison of
1800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies
for single renal tumors. J Urol 2007;178:416.
52. Diblasio CJ, Snyder ME, Russo P. Mini flank supraeleventh incision for open partial or radical nephrectomy. BJU Int 2006;97(1):14956.
53. Gill IS, Remer EM, Hasan WA, et al. Renal cryoablation: outcome at 3 years. J Urol 2005;173:19037.
54. Nguyen CT, Lane BR, Kaouk JH, et al. Surgical salvage of renal cell carcinoma recurrence after thermal ablative therapy. J Urol 2008;180:1049.
55. Wehle MJ, Thiel DD, Petrou SP, et al. Conservative
management of incidental contrast-enhancing renal
masses as safe alternative to invasive therapy. Urology 2004;64:49.
56. Volpe A, Jewett MA. The role of surveillance for small
renal masses. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2007;4:23.
643
Choice of Operation
for Clinically Localized
Renal Tumor
CarvellT. Nguyen, MD, PhDa, Steven C. Campbell, MD, PhDb,
Andrew C. Novick, MDa,*
KEYWORDS
Renal cell carcinoma Radical nephrectomy
Partial nephrectomy Laparoscopy Thermal ablation
Intensive study of the biology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has advanced the understanding of
its pathogenesis and led to novel adjuvant therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Even in
this era of molecular targeted therapy, however,
surgical excision remains the primary curative
treatment for RCC. Historically, radical nephrectomy (RN), with or without ipsilateral adrenalectomy and regional lymphadenectomy, has been
the reference standard for curative treatment of
localized RCC. With prevailing data showing
excellent oncologic efficacy, RN long has been
the treatment of choice in patients who have localized unilateral RCC and a normally functioning
contralateral kidney.1
With the advent of laparoscopy, minimally invasive techniques have been applied to RN resulting
in an appealing alternative to open surgery that is
associated with decreased morbidity and quicker
convalescence. Generally used in the management of localized RCC without invasive features
or substantial venous or nodal involvement, these
techniques have had survival outcomes comparable with those of the open approach, and laparoscopic RN now is firmly established as one of the
standards in this field.25
Despite its long history and proven efficacy
in treating kidney cancer, changes in the
epidemiology of RCC and recent data clarifying

a link between RN and chronic kidney disease
have called into question the status of RN as the
treatment of choice in patients who have a normal
contralateral kidney. During the last decade, there
has been stage and size migration in RCC because
of the increased incidental detection of small
(< 4 cm) renal masses, which now account for
the majority of cases that present for surgical
management.6 Moreover, there now is evidence
demonstrating that renal preservation is critical
even in patients who have normal contralateral
renal function because there is a higher risk of subsequent chronic kidney disease following RN for
RCC.79
As a result, surgical options for localized RCC
have expanded in the past 2 decades to include
nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), which encompasses open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (OPN and LPN, respectively) as well as
newer modalities based on thermal ablation. Partial nephrectomy (PN) has demonstrated curative
potential equal to RN in the treatment of localized
RCC according to comparison studies. For example, Lau and colleagues7 performed a matched
comparison of 164 patients treated with either
RN or PN and reported no significant differences
between the two treatment groups in overall and
cancer-specific survival, complication rate, and
development of metastatic disease. Patients
who underwent PN, however, demonstrated
a
Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue A100, Cleveland,
OH 44195, USA
b
Section of Urological Oncology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500
Euclid Avenue A100, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
E-mail address: novicka@ccf.org (A.C. Novick).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 645655

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.002
EVOLUTION OF THE SURGICAL MANAGEMENT

OF LOCALIZED RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
646
Nguyen et al
a decreased incidence of chronic kidney disease
(defined by a serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL) as well
as a decreased rate of proteinuria at a follow-up
of 10 years. Other groups have demonstrated similar findings, and the increased incidence of renal
insufficiency following RN persists even after controlling for potential confounding factors such as
diabetes or hypertension.10,11
The primary concern from these studies is that
RN can have deleterious effects on a patients
long-term renal function and overall health,
because population-based studies have shown
a correlation between chronic kidney disease
and increased risks of morbid cardiac events, hospitalization for any reason, and death. Another
concern with indiscriminate application of RN is
the possibility of late recurrence of RCC in the
contralateral kidney; options for salvage treatment
become more limited in the context of a solitary
kidney. Overall, the current evidence supports
a judicious use of RN in the treatment of localized
renal masses that otherwise may be amenable to
NSS, and this principle now is an overriding
consideration in the management of patients who
have small renal masses. Undoubtedly, RN
remains a viable option when the primary tumor
is prohibitively large (ie, > 7 cm), replaces too
much renal parenchyma, is in a location not amenable to NSS, or in some older patients who desire
surgical excision but for whom the risks associated with a complex PN may not be acceptable.
THE ASCENDANCY OF ELECTIVE

PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY
PN involves the complete resection of a localized
renal mass with adequate surgical margins while
preserving as much normal renal parenchyma as
possible. Historically, PN has been used in
patients who have imperative indications for renal
preservation to avoid the need for renal replacement therapy. Such patients include individuals
who have a solitary kidney (functional or anatomic), those who have bilateral tumors, or those
affected by local or systemic conditions that may
place them at high risk for subsequent renal failure
(eg, diabetes, hypertension, or renovascular
disease).1214
The indications for NSS have expanded during
the past 2 decades, and elective PN now is established as a standard of care for small (< 4 cm) renal
tumors in patients who have a normal opposite
kidney (Table 1). Elective PN is concordant with
the current mandate to optimize renal function on
a long-term basis but also offers a variety of other
important advantages. It avoids overtreatment
of benign renal histologies that represent
approximately 20% of all small, enhancing renal

tumors,10,1517 its cost effectiveness is equivalent
to that of RN,8,1820 and some studies also demonstrate better quality of life after PN than after
RN.21,22 With careful patient selection and adequate expertise, PN also can provide a perioperative morbidity profile similar to that of RN.
Although preservation of renal function and prevention of chronic kidney disease are important
considerations, local cancer control is still the primary goal of any cancer surgery, and equivalent
oncologic efficacy must be demonstrated before
PN can be accepted as a viable alternative to RN
in an elective setting. In fact, the technical success
rate of PN for RCC is excellent, and the prevailing
data indicate extended cancer-specific survival
rates on par with those observed after RN.14,23
The largest reported study of PN for localized
RCC is from the Cleveland Clinic and reviewed
the results of 485 patients who had sporadic
RCC, demonstrating overall and cancer-specific
5-year survival rates of 81% and 92%, respectively.24 Long-term results of PN for localized
RCC have confirmed its enduring oncologic efficacy. Fergany and colleagues25 demonstrated
a 10-year cancer-specific survival rate of 73% as
well as preservation of renal function in 93% of patients treated for localized sporadic RCC. Likewise, Herr26 reported overall and metastasis-free
survival rates of 93% and 97%, respectively, at
a median follow-up of 10 years in a cohort of patients who had unilateral renal tumors and a normal
opposite kidney. Furthermore, studies from institutions with extensive experience with PN have
found no significant differences in survival
between patients who had low-stage, localized
RCC treated with either PN or RN. Butler and colleagues27 noted 5-year cancer-specific survival
rates of 97% and 100% for patients treated with
RN and PN, respectively, and investigators from
the Mayo Clinic noted similar rates of 96% and
92%.28
Careful patient selection, which probably contributed to the favorable outcomes demonstrated
in these reports, can help determine which patients
will benefit from elective PN versus RN. This precaution will ensure that PN is used safely and
appropriately, thereby optimizing outcomes and
reducing the incidence of tumor recurrence. Preoperative patient characteristics that may predict
postoperative renal insufficiency after RN include
elevated preoperative serum creatinine level, proteinuria, and hypertension,29 and a nomogram
to predict postnephrectomy renal insufficiency
incorporating some of these variables has been developed by investigators at the Memorial SloanKettering Cancer Center.30 In addition, a number
Operation for Clinically Localized Renal Tumor
Table 1
Outcomes after elective partial nephrectomy for unilateral renal tumor and normal opposite kidney
Series
No. of
Patients
Disease-Specific
Survival (%)
Local
Recurrence (%)
MeanTumor
Size (cm)
Bazeed et al (1986)
Carini et al (1988)
Morgan and Zincke (1990)
Selli et al (1991)
Provet et al (1991)
Steinbach et al (1992)
Moll et al (1993)
Thrasher et al (1994)
Lerner et al (1996)
DArmiento et al (1997)
van Poppel et al (1998)
Herr (1999)
Hefez et al (1999)
Barbalias et al (1999)
Belldegrun et al (1999)
Filipas et al (2000)
Delakas et al (2002)
Total
23
10
20
20
19
72
98
6
54
19
51
70
45
41
63
180
118
909
100
90
100
90
100
94.4
100
92
96
98
97.5
100
97.5
100
98
97.3
90100
0
0
0
0
0
2.7 (2 cases)
1 (1 cases)
0
5.6 (3 cases)
0
0
1.5 (2 cases)
0
7.3 (3 cases)
3.2 (2 cases)
1.6 (3 cases)
3.9 (cases)
07.3
3.3
3.5
3.1
< 3.5
2.6
N/A
4
4.3
<4
3.34
3
3
<4
3.5
<4
3.3
3.4
24.3 cm
Abbreviation: N/A, not available.

Data from Campbell SC, Novick AC, Bukow ski RM (2007) Renal tumors. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, et al, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2007. p. 1614.
of clinical criteria related to low tumor burden seem

to be associated with improved patient outcomes
following PN, including small tumor size (eg,
< 4 cm), low tumor stage, and a solitary lesion. In
another study from the Cleveland Clinic, PN
performed in patients fitting these criteria resulted
in a 5-year cancer-specific survival of 100% with
no cases of postoperative tumor recurrence.13
A significant concern with the use of PN in RCC
is indeed the risk of local recurrence in the ipsilateral kidney. Fortunately, overall rates of local recurrence following NSS in the literature range
from 0% to 10%, and when considering tumors
smaller than 4 cm (ie, the types of tumors commonly treated with elective PN), the incidence is
approximately 1% to 3%.14 Taken together, these
data justify the growing confidence in PN as an oncologically equivalent alternative to RN in patients
who have a solitary, unilateral tumor smaller than
4 cm and normal contralateral renal function.
UPPER LIMITS OF TUMOR SIZE FOR ELECTIVE

PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY
Initial studies assessing the impact of tumor size
on treatment outcomes following NSS for localized
RCC demonstrated a significantly lower rate of recurrence and improved survival for tumors smaller
than 4 cm.24 Such data provided the rationale for
using a 4-cm cutoff as the upper limit for elective
PN and a revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for confined RCC
in 2002. During the last decade, PN has indeed
become a standard of care for the treatment of
T1a tumors. With the excellent oncologic efficacy
displayed by PN and the importance of renal preservation, some institutions now are expanding the
indications for elective PN to include T1b tumors
(47 cm) (Fig. 1).
Several studies have suggested that elective PN
in carefully selected patients can achieve oncologic efficacy equivalent to RN in the treatment of
stage T1b renal masses.3133 For example, a large
multi-institutional study demonstrated no significant difference in the rates of distant or local recurrence or cancer-specific mortality between
patients undergoing PN and those undergoing
RN for T1b tumors.31 Similarly, Leibovich and colleagues32 found comparable cancer-specific and
distant metastases-free survival rates for patients
treated with either PN or RN for pT1b tumors after
controlling for pathologic features such as stage,
647
648
Nguyen et al
Fig.1. A 50-year-old man who had no significant past medical history presented with microscopic hematuria and
was found to have a 4.8-cm left renal mass abutting the renal vein and branches of the renal artery (A), The contralateral kidney was normal. Despite the precarious hilar location, three-dimensional reconstructed images
(B) revealed a potential plane of dissection between the mass and the hilar vessels. OPN was performed, resulting
in complete excision of the tumor with negative margins while preserving 75% of the left kidney. Final pathology
was grade 3, pT2 clear cell RCC. At 2-year follow-up, the patient is without evidence of recurrence and has normal
renal function (serum creatinine, 1.0 mg/dL).
grade, and histologic subtype. Although such data

are encouraging, patient selection almost certainly
contributed to the favorable outcomes in these series; patients who underwent PN tended to be
younger, and their tumors tended to be smaller
as well as of lower stage and grade.33 Peripheral
tumor location also was more common in these
series. Elective PN for T1b tumors in a broader patient population remains controversial.34
OPEN VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC

PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY
Significant advances in the field have allowed current laparoscopic techniques to duplicate the essential surgical principles of OPN, including
clamping of the renal vasculature to provide
a bloodless field when necessary, careful resection
of the mass with a rim of normal parenchyma, and
intracorporeal suturing to close the collecting
system and repair the capsular defect.35,36 Nevertheless, LPN can be technically demanding, and
certain obstacles remain, including longer warm ischemia times and hemostatic concerns. As such,
the decision to perform LPN versus OPN currently
may depend more on the experience and comfort
level of the surgeon than on oncologic guidelines.
Not surprisingly, the practice of LPN has been limited largely to specialized tertiary care centers.
A recent multicenter study comparing OPN and
LPN for single renal masses addressed the questions of oncologic efficacy, impact on renal
function, and postoperative morbidity and provides useful information about the relative merits
of these approaches.37 This study comprised
1800 patients including 771 undergoing LPN and
1029 undergoing OPN for a single renal tumor
smaller than 7 cm. Similar cancer-specific survival
(99.3% versus 99.2% at 3 years) and postoperative renal function (97.9% versus 99.6% functioning renal units at 3 months) was demonstrated.
Compared with OPN, LPN was associated with
decreased operative time, blood loss, and hospital
stay but demonstrated longer warm ischemia
times and more postoperative complications requiring additional interventions (Table 2).37 In particular, urologic complications (primarily urine leak
and hemorrhage) were more common after LPN
(9.2% versus 5.0%, P 5 .0006), and postoperative
hemorrhage was almost threefold more common
after LPN (4.2% versus 1.6%, P 5 .0002). It should
be noted that patients treated with OPN were
a higher-risk group than the LPN cohort: a greater
percentage of patients in the OPN group demonstrated decreased performance status, impaired
renal function, and symptomatic presentation.
Furthermore, tumors in the OPN cohort more often
were malignant, were larger on average, and more
were centrally located or involved a solitary kidney
(see Table 2). These observations suggest that in
this study patient selection and tumor biology
were substantially different in the two groups,
with all comparisons reflecting a higher-risk population for OPN.
Table 2
Comparison of patient characteristics, perioperative parameters, and outcome in OPN and LPN
No. patients
ECOG performance status R 1 (%)
Mean preoperative serum creatinine (mg/dL)
% Symptomatic at presentation
Mean tumor size (cm)
% central tumors
% solitary kidney
Mean operative time (min)a
Mean warm ischemia time (min)
Mean blood loss (cm3)a
% with RCC on final pathologya
Mean hospital stay (days)a
% intraoperative complications
% postoperative urologic complicationsa
% postoperative hemorrhagea
% postoperative urine leak
% patients requiring subsequent procedurea
OPN
LPN
1029
14.7
1.25
33.5
3.5
53.3
21.6
266
20.1
376
83
5.8
1
5
1.6
2.3
3.5
771
1.4
1.01
8.8
2.7
34.4
4.2
201
30.7
300
72
3.3
1.8
9.2
4.2
3.1
6.9
Abbreviation: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

a
Statistically significant.
Data from Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 2007;178:416.
Long-term oncologic outcomes following LPN

have become available recently and seem to be
comparable with those observed after OPN. A recent long-term study from the Cleveland Clinic including 56 patients, each of whom had completed
a minimum of 5 years of follow-up after LPN, demonstrated overall and cancer-specific survival
rates of 86% and 100%, respectively, at a median
follow-up of 6 years.38 There was one case of local
recurrence, and no patients developed metastatic
disease. Likewise, in a retrospective comparison
of LPN and OPN, Permpongkosol and colleagues39 demonstrated 5-year disease-free survival rates of 91.4% and 97.6% and actuarial
survival rates of 93.8% and 95.8%, respectively.
Rates of local and distant recurrence after OPN
and LPN also were comparable.
Encouragingly, despite longer warm ischemic
times, LPN, like its open counterpart, has been
shown to have protective effects on long-term renal function when compared with RN.40,41 Finally,
although financial concerns should not be the primary determinant of treatment method, there are
data showing that LPN is less costly than OPN, primarily because of reduced length of stay.42
Although OPN remains the standard mode of
NSS in patients who have localized RCC, the
overall data suggest that LPN, in the hands of an

experienced laparoscopic surgeon, can be an
effective treatment option in select patients, with
equivalent early cancer control, minimal impact
on postoperative renal function, reduced blood
loss, and more rapid convalescence. The increased warm ischemic times and postoperative
urologic complications (eg, hemorrhage) are concerning, however, and mandate careful patient
selection. Complex scenarios for PN such as
centrally located tumor, tumor in a solitary kidney,
predominantly cystic tumor, and multifocal disease probably are managed best with an open
technique. All these challenging situations have
been addressed successfully by experienced
laparoscopic surgeons, however, and these
conditions are best considered relative rather
than absolute contraindications to LPN.35,4345
THERMAL ABLATION FOR LOCALIZED

RENAL MASSES
Conventional surgical excision may not be suitable
for all patients, particularly those of advanced age
or those who have multiple medical comorbidities.
For such high-risk surgical candidates, thermal
ablation represents a less invasive way to manage
649
650
Nguyen et al
small renal masses proactively and seems to be
associated with reduced morbidity and improved
quality of life.4648 Established ablative techniques
include cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation
(RFA), both of which can be performed laparoscopically or percutaneously. The laparoscopic approach is preferred when mobilization away from
adjacent organs is required. The percutaneous approach is even less invasive and is particularly
suited to posteriorly located tumors.49
Because of the relatively recent application of
thermal ablation to renal tumors, the long-term oncologic efficacy of these techniques has not been
established to the same degree as surgical excision. There currently is greater experience with
cryoablation, and there now are some studies
with at least 5 years of follow-up data that suggest
durable cancer control. Hegarty and colleagues50
reported on 66 patients, all of whom had at least
5 years of follow-up after laparoscopic renal cryoablation, and demonstrated 5-year overall and
cancer-specific survival rates of 81% and 98%,
respectively. Another series of 48 patients with
minimum and median follow-ups of 3 years and
64 months, respectively, demonstrated a cancerspecific survival of 100%.51 RFA is less established than cryoablation, and its technology is still
evolving; a number of different RFA generators
and probes are commercially available.52 A review
of the literature indicates that RFA can be effective
in treating small renal masses, providing cancerspecific survival ranging from 83% to 100% at
a mean follow-up of 20 months.53 Long-term
data (R 5 years) are required to establish the
true oncologic efficacy of RFA and the optimal
method for delivering radiofrequency energy.
Because it is less invasive, thermal ablation has
gained considerable traction in the field recently.
This technology comes with several potential limitations that must be considered carefully during
patient counseling and clinical decision making,
however. The current literature suggests that local
cancer control with thermal ablation is inferior to
that achieved with PN. Recent meta-analyses reported higher local recurrence rates with cryoablation and RFA than with surgical excision: 4.6%,
7.9%, and 2.7%, respectively, in the study by
Weld and Landman54 and relative rates of 7.45,
18.23, and 1.0, respectively, in the study by Kunkle
and colleagues.55 Furthermore, the validity of the
radiographic definition of postablative success
has been called into question, with recent data
demonstrating that a small percentage of patients
are found to have viable cancer on biopsy of an
ablated tumor despite lack of enhancement on
MRI.56 Such data suggest that recurrence may
be more common after thermal ablation,
particularly after RFA, than previously appreciated. Another disadvantage of thermal ablation
is the lack of a pathologic diagnosis following
treatment and an inability to confirm complete
tumor kill.
Most local recurrences after thermal ablation
can be managed successfully with repeat ablation,
but indiscriminate use of thermal ablation in patients who otherwise may tolerate conventional
surgery may hinder subsequent salvage attempts.
A recent study from the Cleveland Clinic demonstrated that salvage surgery after previous ablation
can be challenging, and in many cases partial nephrectomy or laparoscopic surgery were not possible.57 A final limitation of thermal ablation relates
to tumor size: success rates fall substantially for
tumor diameters of 3.5 cm or greater. When all
these potential limitations are considered, thermal
ablation currently cannot be recommended as definitive therapy for the general patient population
and may be best suited for high-risk surgical candidates who have small, exophytic renal masses.
SURGICAL APPROACH TO BILATERAL

RENAL TUMORS
Because preservation of renal parenchyma is paramount in patients who have bilateral synchronous
masses, NSS should be performed whenever possible, generally in a bilateral staged fashion. Unilateral RN may be required if conditions such as local
extension, unfavorable location, or extremely large
tumor size preclude PN. At the Cleveland Clinic the
general strategy is to operate first on the kidney
with the less-complicated tumor (eg, based on
size and location), with the intent of preserving
as much renal parenchyma as possible and establishing baseline function of the remnant ipsilateral
kidney. This approach provides increased flexibility when planning the contralateral operation, and
the flexibility can be very helpful in complex situations. This strategy also abrogates the need for
temporary dialysis in the postoperative period
because the contralateral kidney can protect
against acute ischemic renal failure. Others have
described simultaneous management of both kidneys with favorable results, and this approach is
particularly appealing if one side requires either
minimal or no hilar clamping.58 Thermal ablation
also can be considered as a nephron-sparing
strategy in carefully selected patients.
SURGICAL APPROACH TO HEREDITARY

RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
The presentation and natural history of hereditary
RCC, represented by von Hippel-Lindau disease,

familial papillary RCC, hereditary leiomyomatosis
and RCC syndrome, and the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome, differ from sporadic RCC and mandate adjustments in surgical management. Although each
of these syndromes is characterized by distinct
genetic anomalies and histologic correlates, they
all tend to present at a younger age and demonstrate a higher tumor burden, often displaying
bilateral and multifocal disease. Kidneys of
patients who have hereditary RCC also often
harbor several hundred microscopic tumors, and
local recurrences are common after PN as these
occult lesions mature.59,60
Management options in hereditary RCC include
NSS, RN, or active surveillance. Because of the
high tumor burden associated with hereditary
RCC, PN typically is the first-line treatment, allowing pathologic confirmation of the diagnosis as
well as addressing all grossly evident lesions.
Despite high rates of local recurrence, cancerspecific survival rates for patients who had von
Hippel-Lindau disease and localized RCC range
from 70% to 100% at 5 years with a minority of patients (23%) developing end-stage renal disease
and requiring renal replacement therapy.61,62
These data suggest that PN is an effective treatment option in patients who have hereditary
RCC, allowing prolonged survival, preservation of
renal function, and avoidance or delay of renal replacement therapy. Active surveillance is a viable
option for patients who have recurrent disease
whose dominant tumors are smaller than 3 cm,
given that tumors below this size cutoff rarely metastasize.63,64 This 3-cm rule can be applied to
all the familial forms of RCC except hereditary leiomyomatosis, which tends to be a more aggressive
phenotype. Surgical intervention can be delayed
until this size threshold is surpassed, limiting the
morbidity and financial burden of repeated operations and optimizing renal function on a long-term
basis.
RN effectively eliminates the possibility of local
tumor recurrence but may represent overtreatment in most patients and hasten the development
of end-stage renal failure. RN, however, may be
indicated in patients who have hereditary leiomyomatosis, which is associated with renal tumors
that are aggressive at presentation and represent
a significant cause of mortality in these
patients.65,66 Some patients who have hereditary
RCC may even require bilateral nephrectomy if
the primary tumor is extensive bilaterally, although
these patients should be in the minority. Some of
these patients may be considered for subsequent
renal transplantation, and this approach has
been substantiated in the von Hippel-Lindau
population.67
PN remains the preferred management for locally recurrent disease, but thermal ablation represents an attractive option for certain patients,
particularly those who have a history of previous
ipsilateral surgery, impaired renal function that
may be compromised further by hilar clamping,
or significant multifocal disease.68,69 Along these
lines, some have described a combined approach
using PN for dominant lesions and thermal ablation to manage remaining evident lesions, with
the goal of minimizing warm ischemic times while
rendering the kidney grossly free of disease.
SURGICAL APPROACH TO A TUMOR

IN A SOLITARY KIDNEY
Another absolute indication for NSS is the presence of a tumor involving a functional solitary kidney. When contemplating PN for such patients, it
is critical to realize that at least 20% of a normal
kidney must be spared to avoid end-stage renal
failure and dialysis.70,71 Even if this amount of residual renal parenchyma is spared successfully after partial nephrectomy, a minority of patients still
may require dialysis in the postoperative period on
a temporary (8% of cases) or permanent basis
(4%).72 When considering LPN versus OPN in
this scenario, it is important to consider the
adverse effect of prolonged ischemia time on
postoperative renal function of solitary kidneys.
Thompson and colleagues73 reported on a multicenter study assessing the functional effects of
vascular clamping in patients who had solitary kidneys and found that both warm and cold ischemia
were associated with a significantly increased risk
of acute and chronic renal failure and with need for
temporary dialysis. In particular, a warm ischemia
time longer than 20 minutes resulted in a greater
incidence of chronic renal insufficiency and permanent dialysis.
These data emphasize the importance of selecting the nephron-sparing approach that allows adequate control of the renal hilum while limiting
ischemia time. A study from the Cleveland Clinic
compared 169 open and 30 laparoscopic PN performed for stage T1 tumors in a solitary kidney.74
Despite equivalent postoperative renal function
at 3 months, LPN, compared with OPN, was associated with a longer warm ischemia time (mean difference of 9 minutes, P < .0001), a 2.54-fold higher
chance of postoperative complications (P < .05),
and a higher rate of postoperative dialysis (10%
versus 0.6%, respectively; P 5 .01). As such,
OPN may represent the better treatment approach
in patients who have localized RCC involving a solitary kidney who are at high risk for chronic kidney
disease. Thermal ablation also can be a viable
651
652
Nguyen et al
option for NSS in select patients. It must be emphasized, however, that most tumors in a solitary
kidney can be managed safely and effectively
with PN, which is still the standard of care for
this patient population, assuming the patient is
a reasonable surgical candidate.
SURGICAL APPROACH TO CENTRALLY

LOCATED RENAL TUMORS
In the past, certain high-risk tumor characteristics,
such as central location or proximity to the hilar
vessels, were contraindications to PN, committing
patients to RN instead. The risk of local recurrence
for such precariously placed tumors was believed
to be higher because of the difficulty in achieving
the traditional 1- to 2-cm margin of normal parenchyma. Recent studies, however, have demonstrated that margin size has no effect on the risk
of subsequent local recurrence as long as the final
parenchymal margins are negative for tumor involvement.7577 Furthermore, tumor location itself
does not affect treatment outcomes. Analyzing
a cohort of patients who had solitary, unilateral
tumors smaller than 4 cm who were treated with
either PN or RN, Hafez and colleagues78 found
that there were no significant differences between
central and peripheral tumors with respect to
stage and grade distribution, survival, tumor recurrence, or postoperative renal function. Although
PN was more technically challenging for central tumors than for peripheral tumors, as evidenced by
longer ischemia times and more frequent violation
of the collecting system, treatment with PN or RN
was equally effective in this patient cohort regardless of tumor location.78
The initial experience with LPN for central tumors has confirmed its technical feasibility in this
patient population, although the degree of technical difficulty is increased.44 A retrospective comparison of LPN for central versus peripheral
tumors demonstrated longer warm ischemia
time, operative time, and hospital stay for central
tumors, but the rate of perioperative complications
and the median blood loss were similar.45 Given
individual surgeon expertise and experience, indications for LPN can be expanded to include central tumors, but OPN is still the better approach
in most patients. RN remains a viable option
when PN cannot achieve negative margins, reconstruction of the remnant kidney is not feasible, or in
centers where expertise with PN is not available.
SUMMARY
The surgical treatment of localized RCC has undergone much change during the past decade.
Driven by the substantial evidence that preservation of renal function is a relevant clinical consideration for all patients, increasing efforts have been
made to employ nephron-sparing approaches
whenever possible. Efforts that once focused on
avoiding dialysis now should be directed toward
optimizing renal function. The prevailing data indicate that PN provides effective curative treatment
for localized renal tumors on par with RN and
should be the first-line treatment option for most
patients, given requisite surgeon expertise. OPN
is particularly suited to complex situations such
as tumor in a solitary kidney or a central or hilar tumor, because this approach is more versatile and
because the current database suggests that perioperative morbidity is lower than with LPN. Currently, the use of LPN for a given clinical scenario
will depend primarily on patient selection and individual surgeon experience, but its growing importance in the armamentarium of cancer operations
cannot be denied. Thermal ablation is a novel modality with great potential, particularly in high-risk
surgical candidates, but its role as either a means
of definitive therapy or as a supplement to current
surgical approaches remains to be determined.
REFERENCES
1. Lam JS, Shvarts O, Pantuck AJ. Changing concepts
in the surgical management of renal cell carcinoma.
Eur Urol 2004;45:692705.
2. Cadeddu JA, Ono Y, Clayman RV, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell cancer: evaluation
of efficacy and safety: a multicenter experience.
Urology 1998;52:7737.
3. Chan DY, Cadeddu JA, Jarrett TW, et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: cancer control for renal
cell carcinoma. J Urol 2001;166:20959.
4. Gill IS, Meraney AM, Schweizer DK, et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in 100 patients: a single
center experience from the United States. Cancer
2001;92:184355.
5. Permpongkosol S, Chan DY, Link RE, et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: long-term outcomes.
J Endourol 2005;19:62833.
6. Russo P. Open partial nephrectomy: an essential
operation with an expanding role. Curr Opin Urol
2007;17:30915.
7. Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, et al. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing
surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin
Proc 2000;75:123642.
8. McKiernan J, Simmons R, Katz J, et al. Natural history of chronic renal insufficiency after partial and
radical nephrectomy. Urology 2002;59:81620.

9. Huang WC, Levey AS, Serio AM, et al. Chronic kidney disease after nephrectomy in patients with renal
cortical tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:73540.
10. McKiernan J, Yossepowitch O, Kattan MW, et al. Partial nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors: pathologic findings and impact on outcome. Urology
2002;60:10039.
11. Matin SF, Gill IS, Worley S, et al. 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;168:13569.
12. Ghavamian R, Zincke H. Nephron-sparing surgery.
Curr Urol Rep 2001;2:349.
13. Licht MR, Novick AC, Goormastic M. Nephron sparing surgery in incidental versus suspected renal cell
14. Uzzo RG, Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for
renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes.
J Urol 2001;166:618.
15. Glassman D, Chawla SN, Waldman I, et al. Correlation of pathology with tumor size of renal masses.
Can J Urol 2007;14:361620.
16. Silver DA, Morash C, Brenner P, et al. Pathologic
findings at the time of nephrectomy for renal mass.
17. Snyder ME, Bach A, Kattan MW, et al. Incidence of
benign lesions for clinically localized renal masses
smaller than 7 cm in radiological diameter: influence
of sex. J Urol 2006;176:23915.
18. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Shekarriz H, et al. Comparison of costs and complications of radical and
partial nephrectomy for treatment of localized renal
cell carcinoma. Urology 2002;59:2115.
19. Stephenson AJ, Hakimi AA, Snyder ME, et al.
Complications of radical and partial nephrectomy
in a large contemporary cohort. J Urol 2004;171:
1304.
20. Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Hafez K, et al. Comparison of
direct hospital costs and length of stay for radical
nephrectomy versus nephron-sparing surgery in
the management of localized renal cell carcinoma.
Urology 1999;54:9948.
21. Clark PE, Schover LR, Uzzo RG, et al. Quality of life
and psychological adaptation after surgical treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of
the amount of remaining renal tissue. Urology
2001;57:2526.
22. Lesage K, Joniau S, Fransis K, et al. Comparison between open partial and radical nephrectomy for renal tumours: perioperative outcome and healthrelated quality of life. Eur Urol 2007;51:61420.
23. Campbell SC, Novick AC. Surgical technique and
morbidity of elective partial nephrectomy. Semin
Urol Oncol 1995;13:2817.
24. Hafez KS, Fergany AF, Novick AC. Nephron sparing
surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: impact of
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
tumor size on patient survival, tumor recurrence and

TNM staging. J Urol 1999;162:19303.
Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results
of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell
carcinoma: 10-year followup. J Urol 2000;63:4425.
Herr HW. Partial nephrectomy for unilateral renal carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney: 10-year
followup. J Urol 1999;161:334.
Butler BP, Novick AC, Miller DP, et al. Management of
small unilateral renal cell carcinomas: radical versus
nephron-sparing surgery. Urology 1995;45:3440.
Lerner SE, Hawkins CA, Blute ML, et al. Disease outcome in patients with low stage renal cell carcinoma
treated with nephron sparing or radical surgery.
J Urol 1996;155:186873.
Ito K, Nakashima J, Hanawa Y, et al. The prediction
of renal function 6 years after unilateral nephrectomy
using preoperative risk factors. J Urol 2004;171:
1205.
Sorbellini M, Kattan MW, Snyder ME, et al. Prognostic nomogram for renal insufficiency after radical or
Patard JJ, Shvarts O, Lam JS, et al. Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based
on an international multicenter experience. J Urol
2004;171:21815.
106670.
Dash A, Vickers AJ, Schachter LR, et al. Comparison of outcomes in elective partial vs radical
nephrectomy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma of
4-7 cm. BJU Int 2006;97:93945.
Campbell SC, Novick AC. Expanding the indications
for elective partial nephrectomy: is this advisable?
Eur Urol 2006;49:9524.
Gill IS, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, et al. Laparoscopic
partial nephrectomy for renal tumor: duplicating
open surgical techniques. J Urol 2002;167:46976.
Desai MM, Gill IS, Kaouk JH, et al. Laparoscopic
partial nephrectomy with suture repair of the pelvicaliceal system. Urology 2003;61:99104.
Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, et al. Comparison of
1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies
for single renal tumors. J Urol 2007;178:416.
Lane BR, Gill IS. 5-Year outcomes of laparoscopic
Permpongkosol S, Bagga HS, Romero FR, et al.
Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for
the treatment of pathological T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: a 5-year survival rate. J Urol 2006;176:
19848.
Kim FJ, Rha KH, Hernandez F, et al. Laparoscopic
radical versus partial nephrectomy: assessment of
complications. J Urol 2003;170:40811.
653
654
Nguyen et al
41. Zorn KC, Gong EM, Orvieto MA, et al. Comparison of
laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy: effects
on long-term serum creatinine. Urology 2007;69:
103540.
42. Link RE, Permpongkosol S, Gupta A, et al. Cost
analysis of open, laparoscopic, and percutaneous
treatment options for nephron-sparing surgery. J Endourol 2006;20:7829.
43. Gill IS, Colombo JR Jr, Moinzadeh A, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in solitary kidney. J
Urol 2006;175:4548.
44. Gill IS, Colombo JR Jr, Frank I, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors. J Urol 2005;174:
8503.
45. Frank I, Colombo JR Jr, Rubinstein M, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for centrally located renal tumors. J Urol 2006;175:84952.
46. Hinshaw JL, Lee FT Jr. Image-guided ablation of renal cell carcinoma. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am
2004;12:42947.
47. Lowry PS, Nakada SY. Renal cryotherapy: 2003 clinical status. Curr Opin Urol 2003;13:1937.
48. Murphy DP, Gill IS. Energy-based renal tumor ablation: a review. Semin Urol Oncol 2001;19:13340.
49. Hafron J, Kaouk JH. Ablative techniques for the
management of kidney cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol
2007;4:2619.
50. Hegarty NJ, Gill IS, Kaouk JH, et al. Renal cryoablation: 5 year outcomes. [abstract 1091]. J Urol 2006;
175(Suppl):351.
51. Davol PE, Fulmer BR, Rukstalis DB. Long-term
results of cryoablation for renal cancer and complex renal masses. Urology 2006;68(1 Suppl):
S26.
52. Mulier S, Miao Y, Mulier P, et al. Electrodes and multiple electrode systems for radiofrequency ablation:
a proposal for updated terminology. Eur Radiol
2005;15:798808.
53. Park S, Cadeddu JA. Outcomes of radiofrequency
ablation for kidney cancer. Cancer Control 2007;14:
20510.
54. Weld KJ, Landman J. Comparison of cryoablation,
radiofrequency ablation and high-intensity focused
ultrasound for treating small renal tumours. BJU Int
2005;96:12249.
55. Kunkle DA, Egleson BL, Uzzo RG. Excise, ablate, or
observe: the small renal mass dilemmaa metaanalysis and review. J Urol 2008;179:122733.
56. Hegarty NJ, Kaouk J, Remer EM, et al. Lack of enhancement on 6-month MRI does not guarantee
complete cancer cell kill following radiofrequency
ablation of small renal tumors. [abstract 1718].
J Urol 2006;175(4 Suppl):552.
57. Nguyen CT, Lane BR, Kaouk J, et al. Surgical
salvage of renal cell carcinoma recurrence
after thermal ablative therapy. J Urol 2008;180:
1049.
58. Blute ML, Amling CL, Bryant SC, et al. Management

and extended outcome of patients with synchronous
bilateral solid renal neoplasms in the absence of von
Hippel-Lindau disease. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:
10206.
59. Novick AC, Streem SB. Long-term followup after
nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma in
von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Urol 1992;147:
148890.
60. Roupret M, Hopirtean V, Mejean A, et al. Nephron
sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma and von
Hippel-Lindaus disease: a single center experience.
J Urol 2003;170:17525.
61. Lund GO, Fallon B, Curtis MA, et al. Conservative
surgical therapy of localized renal cell carcinoma
in von Hippel-Lindau disease. Cancer 1994;74:
25415.
62. Steinbach F, Novick AC, Zincke H, et al. Treatment of
renal cell carcinoma in von Hippel-Lindau disease:
a multicenter study. J Urol 1995;153:18126.
63. Duffey BG, Choyke PL, Glenn G, et al. The relationship between renal tumor size and metastases in
patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Urol
2004;172:635.
64. Walther MM, Choyke PL, Glenn G, et al. Renal cancer in families with hereditary renal cancer: prospective analysis of a tumor size threshold for
renal parenchymal sparing surgery. J Urol 1999;
161:14759.
65. Launonen V, Vierimaa O, Kiuru M, et al. Inherited
susceptibility to uterine leiomyomas and renal cell
cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:338792.
66. Tomlinson IP, Alam NA, Rowan AJ, et al. Germline
mutations in FH predispose to dominantly inherited
uterine fibroids, skin leiomyomata and papillary renal cell cancer. Nat Genet 2002;30:40610.
67. Goldfarb DA, Neumann HP, Penn I, et al. Results of
renal transplantation in patients with renal cell carcinoma and von Hippel-Lindau disease. Transplantation 1997;64:17269.
68. Shingleton WB, Sewell PE Jr. Percutaneous renal
cryoablation of renal tumors in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Urol 2002;167:126870.
69. Mabjeesh NJ, Avidor Y, Matzkin H. Emerging nephron
sparing treatments for kidney tumors: a continuum of
modalities from energy ablation to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2004;171:55360.
70. Novick AC, Gephardt G, Guz B, et al. Long-term
follow-up after partial removal of a solitary kidney.
N Engl J Med 1991;325:105862.
71. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Bukowski RM. Renal tumors. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, editors,
Campbell-Walsh urology, vol. 2. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2007. p. 16169.
72. Campbell SC, Novick AC, Streem SB, et al. Complications of nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors.
J Urol 1994;151:117780.

73. Thompson RH, Frank I, Lohse CM, et al. The impact
of ischemia time during open nephron sparing surgery on solitary kidneys: a multi-institutional study.
J Urol 2007;177:4716.
74. Lane BR, Novick AC, Babineau D, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy
for tumor in a solitary kidney. J Urol 2008;179:
84751.
75. Timsit MO, Bazin JP, Thiounn N, et al. Prospective
study of safety margins in partial nephrectomy: intraoperative assessment and contribution of frozen
section analysis. Urology 2006;67:9236.
76. Castilla EA, Liou LS, Abrahams NA, et al. Prognostic

importance of resection margin width after nephronsparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma. Urology
2002;60:9937.
77. Sutherland SE, Resnick MI, Maclennan GT, et al.
Does the size of the surgical margin in partial nephrectomy for renal cell cancer really matter?
J Urol 2002;167:614.
78. Hafez KS, Novick AC, Butler BP. Management of
small solitary unilateral renal cell carcinomas: impact
of central versus peripheral tumor location. J Urol
1998;159:115660.
655
Resection of Renal
Tumors Invading
the Vena Cava
Chad Wotkowicz, MD*, Matthew F.Wszolek, MD,
John A. Libertino, MD
KEYWORDS
Renal cell carcinoma Inferior vena cava
Surgical management
CLINICAL PRESENTATION
The advent of cross-sectional imaging for the
work-up of abdominal pain has resulted in an
increase of RCC prevalence. A number of patients
who have venous tumor thrombus can be asymptomatic depending on the level of the tumor
thrombus and the extent of occlusion of the IVC.
Significant venous congestion as a result of caval
intrusion can present with varying symptoms,
including significant lower extremity edema, varicocele formation, proteinuria, caput medusae,
and even pulmonary emboli. If the tumor extends
above the level of the hepatic veins, Budd-Chiari
syndrome may result from obstruction of the major
hepatic veins, resulting in a triad of hepatomegaly,
abdominal fullness/pain, and ascites. The resulting
varices produce massive collaterals with associated impaired hepatic function and portal hypertension. Additional symptoms of RCC include
flank discomfort, hematuria, and constitutional
changes (fever, weight loss, fatigue). These constitutional symptoms usually indicate the presence of
metastatic disease with an overall poor prognosis.
DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING AND PREOPERATIVE

EVALUATION
All patients who have renal masses must have
imaging studies, including chest radiographs and
bone scans when appropriate, to rule out metastatic disease. In patients who have venous extension, additional studies are necessary to define the
extent of the tumor thrombus. For this subset of
Department of Urology, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA, USA

E-mail address: Chad.wotkowicz@lahey.org (C. Wotkowicz).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 657671
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.013
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been called

the internists tumor for many years because of
the myriad of vague symptoms associated
with this malignancy. Patients historically presented with metastatic disease at the time of their
initial diagnosis. At the present time, approximately
70% of the patients who have RCC are diagnosed
as a result of enhanced imaging capabilities. This
early diagnosis has produced a stage migration
because many RCCs are discovered incidentally.
Kidney cancer is the third most common urologic
malignancy in the United States, representing
3.5% of the newly diagnosed cancers in the United
States, and accounts for 2.3% of cancer-related
deaths.1 During the past 20 years, the incidence
of RCC has been increasing worldwide at a rate of
2.5% every year. This increased incidence is a result of increased abdominal imaging and an aging
population.24 In addition, RCC is a highly vascular
malignancy with a tendency to invade the venous
system and create a tumor thrombus either in the
renal vein or the inferior vena cava (IVC). An estimated 4% to 10% of RCCs have a tumor thrombus
present in the venous circulation, specifically the
renal vein and IVC, and a subpopulation of 1%
has extension into the right atrium.5 Despite
advances in radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy the reference standard for RCC with
tumor thrombus remains surgical resection.
Several contemporary series have demonstrated
5-year survival rates of up to 60% in the absence
of metastatic disease in patients who have venous
tumor thrombus treated with radical nephrectomy
and tumor thrombectomy.511
658
Wotkowicz et al
patients the authors preferred imaging modality is
MRI, specifically magnetic resonance venography,
in combination with CT studies and threedimensional reformatted images (Fig. 1). Tumor
at or above the level of the diaphragm requires
transesophageal echocardiography and may
necessitate angiography to delineate the extent
of the tumor thrombus. At the present time positron emission tomography (PET) scans have
a limited diagnostic role; however, this modality
is being evaluated at the Lahey Clinic as part of
the preoperative evaluation and postoperative
follow-up. The authors have noted that PET CT
has demonstrated lesions in the liver that have
not been detected on ordinary CT or MRI (Fig. 2).
A report from Zini and colleagues12 suggests
that preoperative measurements of the renal vein
and IVC diameter with associated tumor thrombus
correlate with the rate of renal ostial wall invasion
and may serve as another prognostic indicator.
The importance of preoperative imaging for surgical planning cannot be overemphasized. Tumor
thrombus extending to the level of the hepatic
veins or higher may require cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest to provide insurance
against excessive blood loss. Patients slated for
cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest
should have a cardiac evaluation, which may
include stress testing or a coronary angiogram. If
significant coronary artery disease is discovered,
it may be treated with either a stent or bypass
grafting. In five of the authors patients bypass
grafting was performed concomitantly with the
radical nephrectomy and IVC thrombectomy.13
Bland thrombus often can be distinguished from

tumor thrombus during the preoperative evaluation, and anticoagulation therapy or placement of
an IVC filter should be considered to limit further
propagation and the possibility of a pulmonary
embolus. Transesophageal echocardiography
identifies the presence of tumor thrombus in the
right atrium and is an important adjunctive intraoperative diagnostic modality.14
RENAL ANGIOINFARCTION
Although only one prospective trial of preoperative
angioinfarction is available to validate its use, the
authors find that preoperative renal artery embolization is an important adjunctive tool in the treatment for advanced RCC, including patients who
have venous tumor involvement.15 Preoperative
renal angioinfarction facilitates the dissection of
the renal tumor as a result of local tissue edema
from hypoxia and tissue necrosis. In addition, it
potentially may decrease the extent of the tumor
thrombus while minimizing intraoperative blood
loss associated with extensive venous collaterals.
Renal angioinfarction also allows the surgeon to
ligate or transect the renal vein before controlling
or occluding the renal artery. Clinicians must be
aware of the postinfarction syndrome caused by
innate and humoral immune responses to the
infracted kidney.16 This syndrome is characterized
by chills, fevers, flank pain, malaise, hematuria,
transient hypertension, and hyponatremia, all of
which are self limiting.17
Fig. 1. (A) Coronal scan demonstrates the extent of tumor thrombus to the level of the major hepatic veins. (B)
Lateral reconstructions indicate thrombus above the diaphragm. Cardiopulmonary bypass was required to resect
this tumor.
Resection of Renal Tumors Invading the Vena Cava
Box 1
American Joint Committee on Cancer 2002 TNM
staging system for renal cell carcinoma
T: Primary tumor
Tx: Primary tumor cannot be assessed
T0: No evidence of primary tumor
T1: Tumor <7 cm in diameter, limited to kidney
T1a: Tumor 04 cm in greatest diameter, confined to kidney
T1b: Tumor 47 cm in greatest diameter, confined to kidney
T2: Tumor > 7 cm in greatest diameter, confined
to kidney
T3: Tumor extends into major veins or invades
adrenal gland or perinephric tissues but not beyond Gerotas fascia
T3a: Tumor directly invades adrenal gland or
perirenal and/or renal sinus fat but not beyond
Gerotas fascia
Fig. 2. PET scan obtained during preoperative evaluation for planned radical nephrectomy demonstrates
increased uptake in multiple sites of the liver.
CLINICAL STAGING AND PROGNOSTICS FACTORS

There have been numerous proposals for staging
RCCs and venous invasion. The current TNM staging system (Box 1) designates tumor thrombus in
the renal vein up to the diaphragm as T3b. Numerous retrospective studies at the Lahey Clinic and
elsewhere advocate revision based on difference
in survival when only the renal vein is involved.18,19
Literature, however, supports the current classification scheme, leaving the debate open for further
discussion.20 In addition to the level of the tumor
thrombus, a variety of centers are exploring
additional prognostic factors for a revision of the
current staging. The UCLA Integrated Staging
System incorporates TNM stage, Fuhrman tumor
grade, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology
Group performance status.21 Kattan and colleagues22 have developed a nomogram based on
the TNM stage, patient symptoms, tumor size,
grade, and vascular invasion or tumor necrosis.
The SSIGN (stage, size, grade necrosis) model
from the Mayo Clinic also has been evaluated in
more than 1800 patients.23
SURGICAL TREATMENT STRATEGIES

This discussion of surgical planning covers the
following levels of tumor thrombus: renal vein,
infrahepatic, retrohepatic, suprahepatic, supradiaphragmatic, and intra-atrial. Aggressive surgical management (radical nephrectomy, IVC
T3b: Tumor grossly extends into the renal vein

or its segmental (ie, muscle-containing)
branches or into the vena cava below the
diaphragm
T3c: Tumor grossly extends into the vena cava
above the diaphragm or invades the wall of
the vena cava
T4: Tumor invades beyond Gerotas fascia
N: Regional lymph nodes
NX: Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0: No regional lymph node metastasis
N1: Metastasis in a single regional lymph node
N2: Metastasis in more than one regional lymph
node
M: Distant metastases
MX: Metastases cannot be assessed
M0: No distant metastases
M1: Distant metastases
thrombectomy, lymph node dissection, and

potential metastectomy) remains the primary
treatment modality, with the level of the tumor
thrombus dictating the surgical approach. Tumors
involving the caval venous system represent one
of the most technically challenging and rewarding
procedures for urologists because the 5-year survival rates, even in the face of intra-atrial tumor
thrombus, are comparable to those for lesions
confined to the kidney. A stepwise approach is
discussed for each level of vein involvement focusing on techniques the authors have found
659
Wotkowicz et al
660
successful in treating more 243 patients over

a 30-year period (Fig. 3).24 Additional techniques
used by other urologic surgeons also are discussed in conjunction with specific scenarios.
RENAL VEIN INVOLVEMENT

The invasion of the tumor thrombus at the level
of the renal vein often can be approached using
the principles of traditional radical nephrectomy
first described by Robson and colleagues25 in
1969. The kidney and the great vessels can be
exposed, mobilized, and controlled using a thoracoabdominal incision (Fig. 4). In general a ninth
or tenth intercostal incision is preferred. Significant venous collaterals can develop in the setting
of venous tumor thrombus, particularly the lumbar drainage system. After ligation of the renal
artery, the tumor thrombus is palpated gently to
ensure that no further extension into the vena
cava is present. A Satinsky clamp then is placed
at the level of the renal vein ostium, sparing any
lumbar tributaries. A circumferential incision is
made at the level of the renal vein ostium. The
caval defect is closed with running 4-0 polypropylene sutures, with caution taken to avoid constricting the diameter of the vena cava. With the
venous system and arterial system ligated,
a standard nephrectomy is performed with or
without a lymph node dissection for staging purposes. In rare instances it is possible to spare
the adrenal gland in lower pole tumors.
SUPRARENAL (INFRAHEPATIC TUMOR

THROMBUS)
The authors categorize the presence of tumor
thrombus below the level of the liver edge as infrahepatic. It often is possible to resect these lesions
without bypass, because caval wall resection is
rarely necessary, and bleeding can be controlled.
The initial portion of this operation is to control
60
RENAL CELL CANCER WITH IVC

INVOLVEMENT - STRATIFICATION BY YEAR OF SURGERY
50
40
30
20
10
0
t
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
-9
-8
en
-7
-8
-9
00
00
86
-2
76
es
71
81
91
-2
r
9
6
9
9
9
9
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
0
-p
19
20
06
20
Fig. 3. Surgical stratification of renal cell cancer with

tumor thrombus at the Lahey Clinic.
Fig. 4. Thoracoabdominal incision landmarks.
the IVC with limited manipulation to prevent tumor

embolus. The vena cava is dissected anteriorly
and mobilized so that a Rummel tourniquet can
be placed above and below the tumor thrombus
and around each renal vein. Transesophageal
echocardiography is performed to rule out propagation of the tumor thrombus. A chevron incision is
made from the tip of the eleventh rib to the tip of
the contralateral eleventh rib. The aorta and vena
cava are exposed, and dissection is continued to
allow placement of the Rummel tourniquets. As
mentioned previously, large upper pole tumors
also can be approached via a thoracoabdominal
incision. The renal artery, associated lumbar and
minor hepatic veins, and the contralateral renal
vein are isolated and are dissected circumferentially. In many instances renal angioinfarction
may produce an inflammatory response that precludes arterial mobilization; in this instance the authors defer ligation of the renal artery until the
tumor thrombectomy has been completed. After
the Rummel tourniquets are applied as described
previously, a longitudinal cavatomy is made, and
the thrombus is freed from the caval wall to the
level of the renal vein ostium (Fig. 5) The IVC
then is gently flushed with heparinized saline and
is evaluated for residual fragments. The cavotomy
is closed with continuous 4-0 polypropylene sutures. The infrarenal clamp is released initially to
purge the system and to limit the chance of embolus. Radical nephrectomy and/or lymph node dissection is performed after closure of the vena
cava has been completed.

Fig. 5. Removal of larger rightsided infrahepatic tumor without cardiopulmonary bypass.
SUPRARENAL THROMBUS (RETROHEPATIC

AND SUPRADIAPHRAGMATIC)
Surgical removal of RCC with suprarenal retrohepatic tumor thrombus can be accomplished with
a variety of surgical techniques with equivalent oncologic outcomes. The authors experience with
hypothermic circulatory arrest and cardiopulmonary bypass is one of the largest series published
to date with outcomes comparable to those of
contemporary colleagues.26 The authors have described techniques of vascular and liver mobilization that have provided excellent exposure to the
retrohepatic portion of the IVC (Fig. 6). After
a chevron incision is made and the absence of
metastatic disease is confirmed, the anterior surface of the IVC is identified and is palpated gently
to confirm the cephalad extent of the tumor
thrombus. In some cases the thrombus can be

gently milked caudally for clamp placement. This
procedure must be performed with caution to prevent embolization of the thrombus. Traditionally
the duodenum is kocherized, and the Langenbuch
maneuver is used to mobilize the liver cephalad
and to the left, thus exposing the retrohepatic portion of the IVC (Fig. 7). The kidney is mobilized
completely with the exception of the renal vein
and associated tumor thrombus (Fig. 8). The IVC
then is mobilized completely from the renal vein
to the cephalad extent of the tumor thrombus,
ensuring retroperitoneal hemostasis before heparinization and cardiopulmonary bypass. The right
subclavian artery and superior vena cava are cannulated, and cardiopulmonary bypass is initiated
(Fig. 9). Thiopental and methylprednisolone are
given as the core temperature is cooled to 18 to
Fig. 6. (A, B) Anatomic relationship of IVC, hepatic vasculature, and diaphragm.
661
662
Wotkowicz et al
remove the kidney and thrombus as one specimen
(Fig. 12). The advantage of bypass is an essentially
bloodless operative field, but the authors
recognize and accept the complications of bypass, including coagulopathy and the potential
for neurologic complications.
MINIMALLY INVASIVE CARDIOPULMONARY

BYPASS
Fig. 7. Exposure of the retrohepatic IVC.
20 C and the patient is exsanguinated. Patients

can withstand up to 40 minutes of circulatory
arrest time without neurologic insult and may be
exposed to extended periods with the use of
retrograde cerebral perfusion.27 A right atriotomy
provides distal control of the tumor thrombus, minimizing the risk of embolization (Fig. 10). An anterior cavotomy is made from the level of the renal
vein to the level of the hepatic veins, and the
thrombus is extracted with the patient in Trendelenbergs position and using positive-pressure
respiration (Fig. 11). In some situations a Fogarty
catheter is passed into the atrium and/or hepatic
veins to retrieve portions of the tumor thrombus.
The authors use venacavascopy with a flexible
cystoscope to ensure that tumor thrombus
removal is complete. Efforts should be made to
Fig. 8. Intraoperative photograph demonstrating the

complete mobilization of the kidney except for the renal vein and associated tumor thrombus.
Cardiopulmonary bypass has been done at the

Lahey Clinic using a minimally invasive approach
since 1998.28 It was developed initially for aortic
valve replacements but suited the authors need
to carry out cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest in patients who have tumor thrombus
extending beyond the hepatic veins or into the
atrium.29 Unlike the traditional approach, the kidney is not mobilized during the initial exposure;
rather, a chevron incision is made, and surveillance for intra-abdominal metastatic disease is
performed. The anterior vena cava and renal vein
are identified using a no-touch technique, minimizing the possibility of a pulmonary embolus.
(The initiative for this approach stemmed from a lethal pulmonary embolism during the removal of
a large left-sided adrenal tumor with associated
retrohepatic tumor thrombus.)
Next, the right subclavian artery is mobilized
via a small infraclavicular incision. Then a small
(2-inch) right parasternal incision is made at
the heads of the third and fourth ribs. This incision allows resection of the rib cartilage and
ligation of the right internal thoracic artery. Periosteum muscles and pleura are preserved for
closure, and the right pericardium is opened
exposing the superior vena cava and right
atrium. Systemic heparinization is initiated as
an 8-mm synthetic graft is sewn to the right
subclavian artery for arterial return while a twostage venous cannula is positioned into the right
atrium for venous outflow (Fig. 13). Cardiopulmonary bypass then is initiated, and the patient
is cooled in a fashion similar to that used for patients undergoing traditional bypass procedures.
A formal right atriotomy is made, and the distal
components of the thrombus are identified while
the urologic surgeon opens the IVC. Tumor
thrombus is removed from the cava, and
a sponge stick or laparotomy pad is passed
up to the cardiothoracic team to be certain
that all residual thrombus has been removed
(Fig. 14). Flexible cystoscopy may be performed
to confirm the presence or absence of clot or
venous wall invasion. Fogarty balloons may be
used to address thrombus in the hepatic veins.
Radical nephrectomy is performed while the

Fig.
9. Traditional
cardiopulmonary
bypass requiring median sternotomy.
patient is being rewarmed and is coming off

bypass. Then protamine sulfate is given to offset
the effect of heparin; fresh frozen plasma, platelets, and desmopressin can be to given to
address any coagulopathy. Unlike traditional
bypass, coronary revascularization cannot be
done.
The authors have performed more than 50 caval
thrombectomies using cardiopulmonary bypass
and circulatory arrest. They have performed minimal-access bypass procedures in more than 30
patients to date with results demonstrating shorter
operative and hospital times and decreased rates
of transfusion and of mechanical ventilatory
support (Table 1).26 Eliminating the median
sternotomy reduces the dose of postoperative
analgesics required and also avoids reoperative
sternotomy in patients who have had a prior coronary artery bypass procedure. Close monitoring
for hematologic and neurologic complications
must be observed in the immediate postoperative
period.30 Thus far these authors have had no
serious neurologic sequelae from cardiopulmonary
bypass and circulatory arrest in their experience

of more than 50 patients.
VENOVENOUS BYPASS
Patients who have minimal extension of thrombus
above the level of the diaphragm can be managed
with venovenous bypass via a caval-atrial
shunt.31,32 With this approach the vena cava
needs to be controlled at the infrarenal level, at
the level of both renal veins, and at its intrapericardial portion. Once control is established, the
cannulas can be placed in the right atrium or
axillary vein and the femoral veins, and bypass
can be initiated before cavotomy. Bleeding from
the hepatic venous system can be managed by
cross-clamping the hepatic veins or by the Pringle
maneuver. The Pringle maneuver can be used for
up to 45 minutes before liver metabolism is
affected significantly. Although this technique
avoids cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory
arrest, the incidence of hepatic venous bleeding
can be significant.
663
664
Wotkowicz et al
described by the authors group and by Ciancio
and colleagues.3335 The liver is mobilized to the
left after the division of the ligamentum teres, falciform ligament, triangular ligament, and superior
coronary ligament of the liver. The porta hepatis
is accessed via the foramen of Winslow, and the
Pringle maneuver is employed. This technique
provides excellent access to the retrohepatic portion of the vena cava and allows mobilization of the
liver from the vena cava, leaving only the major
hepatic veins in continuity. After liver mobilization
the surgeon can palpate and milk the tumor thrombus caudally below the confluence of the hepatics
veins to limit hepatic venous congestion associated with hepatic clamping. All cases are performed with the use of transesophageal echo
monitoring.
SUPRADIAPHRAGMATIC AND ATRIAL TUMOR

RESECTION WITHOUT BYPASS
Fig. 10. Right atriotomy exposing tumor thrombus after circulatory arrest has been achieved.
LIVER TRANSPLANTATION MOBILIZATION

Mobilization of the liver has been used successfully to treat similar tumors except in cases with
significant intra-atrial tumor thrombus burden.
Liver mobilization avoids the use of bypass, as
A case report from DAncona and colleagues36

describes the removal of a suprarenal tumor
thrombus using extracorporeal circulation and
deep hypothermic arrest without violation of the
thoracic cavity. After exposure of the vena cava,
the liver is retracted inferiorly to expose the
pericardium at the level of the diaphragmatic insertion. Retraction again is facilitated via division of
multiple perihepatic ligamentous structures, as
described previously. A pericardial window
permits cardiac defibrillation. Extracorporeal
Fig. 11. (A, B) Schematic demonstrating the removal of atrial tumor thrombus. When tumor burden is too large,
the atrial component may be fractured and removed first.

bypass, mild hypothermia, and an intermittent
cross-clamping of the supraceliac aorta to avoid
the risks associated with circulatory arrest.
ENDOLUMINAL OCCLUSION
AND CAVAL THROMBUS
Fig. 12. Radical nephrectomy specimen and associated

tumor thrombus.
circulation is established via the right femoral

artery and the right femoral and subclavian veins,
and core hypothermia to 20 C achieved before
circulatory arrest commences. Infrahepatic and
suprahepatic longitudinal incisions provide access
for thrombus removal. In contrast to other reports,
a nephrectomy is performed while gaining access
to the femoral circulation and before extracorporeal circulation is established. Chowdhury
and colleagues37 discuss another alternative for
intra-atrial tumor thrombus using cardiopulmonary
The authors have used Fogarty balloon catheters

in efforts to eliminate thrombus from the vena
cava or, in some instances, thrombus that has
extended into the hepatic veins, into the
contralateral renal veins, or caudally toward the
common iliac bifurcation. Zini and colleagues38
describe an alternative technique of transesophageal
echocardiographyguided
endoluminal
occlusion cranial to tumor thrombus, eliminating
the need for extensive caval mobilization. Although
the inherent risk of emboli during catheter placement seems high, their series of 13 procedures
(6 retrohepatic and 7 suprahepatic) included only
one event, which was asymptomatic. The authors
claim that extensive caval mobilization used with
liver transplant techniques carries an even higher
risk of emboli. This technique should be
approached with caution when the thrombus
seems to invade caval wall, as evidenced by resistance to the catheter placement.
LAPAROSCOPIC MANAGEMENT IN RENAL CELL

TUMOR THROMBUS
Laparoscopy has been used in the successful
resection of renal carcinomas with renal vein
thrombus via pure and hand-assisted approaches.
Intraoperative ultrasound can help establish the
extent of thrombus and guide the placement of
distal clamps.39 Hand-assisted approaches using
a subcostal incision also have been reported for
Fig. 13. Minimal access cardiopulmonary bypass using a parasternal incision.
665
666
Wotkowicz et al
Fig.14. Yankeur suction passed from the thoracic team

into the infradiaphragmatic IVC.
treating tumors extending into the IVC.40 Urologists at the Cleveland Clinic successfully removed
a right atrial tumor thrombus in a calf model using
combined laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with
deep hypothermic circulatory arrest.41 Such
approaches are sure to surface with the continuing
rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical
techniques.
NEPHRON-SPARING SURGERY
AND TUMOR THROMBUS
The unfortunate patient who has a solitary kidney
and RCC with associated tumor thrombus and
decent performance status may be a candidate
for nephron-sparing surgery. Sengupta and colleagues4244 have reported their experience as
well as additional case reports. These studies
showed limited oncologic success and a relatively
high rate of eventual completion radical nephrectomy. The authors recommend that urologists
attempting these procedures be skilled in
extracorporeal bench surgery, renal autotransplantation, and vena caval reconstruction with
the caveat that achieving negative margins is
more important than avoiding the need for renal
replacement therapy.
INTERRUPTION OF THE INFERIOR VENA CAVA

Using MRI with gadolinium, Blute and colleagues45 have devised an approach for treating
bland tumor thrombus in the setting of RCC to prevent unwanted pulmonary embolism. The authors
reviewed 160 patients who had thrombus extending 2 cm and more above the renal vein and identified 40 patients who had total or partial venous
occlusion and the presence or absence of associated bland thrombus. (It should be noted that any
attempt to resect or ligate the IVC should be preceded by efforts to preserve the integrity of the
lumbar drainage system.) Blute and colleagues
recommend ligating no more than two lumbar
veins. Patients who have a patent cava and no
associated distal or bland tumor thrombus can
be managed with cavatomy closure only. A partially occluded vena cava with distal pelvic bland
thrombus can be managed with an interruption
caval filter. Patients who have a totally occluded
vena cava with associated bland thrombus are
treated by IVC staple ligation. In the latter group,
distal margins should be sent to pathology for frozen-section analysis. The outcomes for these
groups fail to demonstrate any significant morbidity and thus support the use of these techniques in
the management of retrograde bland tumor thrombus in this complex surgical population.
CAVAL RESECTION AND REPAIR

Tumor thrombus may invade the wall of the IVC
directly in up to 23% of patients, usually at the
ostium of the renal vein.46 At the Lahey Clinic,
the authors have had success using polytetrafluoroethylene substitution grafts. In cases requiring median sternotomy and entry into the heart,
the authors also have used a portion of pericardium to repair defects in the vena cava. An additional option includes autologous saphenous vein
grafts. Perhaps larger tumor thrombus burden,
as suggested by Zini and colleagues, should be
treated with cavectomy and interposition grafts
where appropriate. Previous publications, however, suggest that these grafts are associated
with increased morbidity and mortality, and their
use is not recommended at this time.
COMPLICATIONS
The incidence of complications often depends on
the level of tumor thrombus and the surgical
approach taken. Boorjian and colleagues47
reviewed their experience with more than 650
patients undergoing nephrectomy and tumor
thrombectomy and noted that the incidence of
early (<30 days) and late complications correlated
with thrombus level. Operative time and blood loss
followed the same trend. The present authors have
reported their experience with minimal-access
Table 1
Operative and perioperative comparison of traditional (TMS) versus minimal-access (MA) cardiopulmonary
bypass26
Operation
Cardiopulmonary
bypass time
Circulatory arrest
Days ventilated
Length of stay
Transfusions
Overall complications
Pulmonary
Cardiac
Renal
Infection
Hepatic
TMS Median (n 5 22)
MA Median (n 5 28)
P-value
600 (295995)
135 (50217)
450 (270761)
148 (86265)
<.001
.527
33 (1290)
7 (1110)
26 (2114)
11 (450)
17
12
12
6
10
7
34 (1762)
4 (146)
12 (545)
5 (215)
21
7
13
4
7
5
.880
.032
.007
.002
1.000
.264
.741
.311
.210
.331
Data from Wotkowicz C, Libertino J, Sorcini A, et al. Management of renal cell carcinoma with vena cava and atrial thrombus: minimal access vs median sternotomy with circulatory arrest. BJU Int 2006;98(2):28997.
versus traditional approaches for circulatory arrest

with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, showing
the former to have shorter operative time and
length of stay, less need for mechanical ventilatory
support, and fewer transfusions Table 1.26
CYTOREDUCTIVE NEPHRECTOMY
AND METASTECTOMY
Patients who have metastatic RCC face a poor
prognosis, with a median survival of 8 months
and a 2-year survival rate of 10% to 20%. A combined analysis of the two sentinel trials elucidating
the benefits of cytoreductive nephrectomy (Southwest Oncology Group-8949 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer)
revealed a survival benefit of 13.6 months for
nephrectomy combined with interferon-alpha therapy versus 7.8 months for interferon therapy
alone.48 Retrospective data from the UCLA group
suggest a more substantial survival benefit when
interferon alpha is replaced with interleukin-2.49
The underlying mechanisms of improved survival
with cytoreductive nephrectomy before systemic
therapy are not fully understood. The reduction in
growth factors, angiogenesis promoters, and
inhibitory immunomodulators by primary tumor
resection may enhance the efficacy of systemic
immunotherapy compared with immunotherapy
without prior cytoreductive nephrectomy.
First described by Barney and Churchill50 in
1939, the resection of pulmonary metastasis
remains an effective treatment for select patients.
Studies have attempted to define patient populations that would benefit from metastectomy
through subgroup analysis. Favorable prognostic
factors in resecting isolated pulmonary metastasis
include preoperative performance status, completeness of resection, number of lesions (fewer
than six), extent of lymph node involvement, and
length of disease-free interval. Patients having
synchronous lesions have significantly worse outcomes.51,52 Properly selected patients may have
5-year survival rates exceeding 50%.51 At the
present time, metastectomy in nonpulmonary sites
such as the liver and brain is controversial and
should be considered investigational.
CLINICAL OUTCOMES
There has been a modest increase in the number
of IVC thrombectomies performed by urological
oncologists and in improved survival outcomes.
These results can be attributed to improved imaging modalities and surgical planning as well as to
technological advances in intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative intensive care management.
Table 2 summarizes recent reports from tertiary
centers with significant experience in surgical
management of RCC with tumor thrombus. The
debate concerning the prognostic significance of
tumor thrombus level with regards to the current
TNM staging system may be resolved best by
a multi-institutional meta-analysis.5358
667
668
TumorThrombus
Stratification
Complications
(%)
Operative
Mortality (%)
659
0: renal vein (426)

I: % 2 cm above renal vein
(73)
II: at or above hepatic veins
(93)
III: above hepatic vein (35)
IV: above diaphragm (32)
Early surgical complications

Level 0: 12.4
Level I: 17.8
Level II: 20.4
Level III: 25.7
Level IV: 46.9
Late complications
Level 0: 24.4
Level I: 28.8
Level II: 33.3
Level III: 34.3
Level IV: 37.5
Complications
19701989: 13.4
19902006: 8.1
19701989: 3.8
19902006: 2.0
Fijusawa 2007
55
3.6
Kalatte and
Belldegrun
2007
321
Level 1IV
I: infrahepatic (22)
II: intrahepatic (20)
III: suprahepatic (10)
IV: into atrium (3)
Renal vein: 166
IVC: 137
Atrium: 18
All complications
Renal vein; 12
IVC: 28
Atrium: 11
Renal vein: 2
IVC: 7
Atrium: 11
Author,Year
No. Patients
Blute 2007
Survival Outcomes:
Cancer-Specific Survival (CSS)
and Disease-Specific
Survival (DSS) (%)
5-year CSS
Level 0: 49.1
Level I: 31.7
Level II: 26.3
Level III: 39.4
Level IV: 7
Level 0 versus I (P 5 .002)
Level IIV (P 5 .868)
pN0/pNx, pM0: 59
pN1/pN2,pM1: 6
Histologic features
With tumor necrosis: 26
Without tumor necrosis: 61
With sarcomatoid: 3
Without sarcomatoid: 47
Perinephric fat invasion
Present: 32
Absent: 56
CSS (all levels)
1 year: 74.5
3 years: 51.4
5 years: 30.3
DSS (2/5/10-year)
Renal vein (58/41/24)
IVC (48/30/25)
Atrium (45/22/0)
Thrombus level (P 5 .53)
Overall immunotherapy
response rate: 19
Metastatic disease
Median survival: 16 months
Wotkowicz et al
Table 2
Surgical outcomes for patients who had renal cell carcinoma and tumor thrombus
Major complications: 6
Minor complications: 16
Overall 3-year survival

Negative lymph node: 75
Positive lymph node: 0
74
Level I: <5 cm above renal

vein
Level II: >5 cm above renal
vein and below hepatic
veins
Level II:I above hepatic
veins and below
diaphragm
Level IV: above diaphragm
Major complications: 28
243
Renal vein: 87
IVC: 126
Atrium: 30
DSS (5/10 year)

Renal vein (51.5/39)
IVC (33.4/0)
Thrombus level (0.231. NS)
5-year overall survival (no
evidence of metastases)
Level I: 38
Level II: 38
Level III: 30
Level IV: 0
With evidence of
metastatic disease at
presentation,
median survival 5 13
months
CSS (5/10 years)
Renal vein: 50/50
IVC: 35/25
Atrium: 20/15
Thrombus level (P 5 .04)
49
Ficarra and Patard 2001
142
Staehler and Brkovic 2000
Libertino (unpublished
data)
Abbreviation: NS, not significant.
Nevus classification
Level I: renal vein
Level II: infrahepatic IVC
Level III: retrohepatic to
diaphragm
Level IV:
supradiaphragmatic
Renal vein: 118
Subdiaphragmatic IVC: 24
Parekh and Smoth 2005
669
670
Wotkowicz et al
SUMMARY
The surgical resection of large renal tumors with
associated tumor and bland thrombus within the
IVC presents a challenge to the urological surgeon. Given the magnitude of many of these procedures, surgeons who have experience at
tertiary centers are most adept in their management. The authors clinical experience is one of
the largest to date, and they hope this article
serves as guide to physicians treating this unique
population. They also commend their colleagues
who have encouraged alternative techniques
with equivalent outcomes that adhere to the principles of urologic oncology.
13.
14.
15.
16.
REFERENCES
1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics.
CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57(1):4366.
2. Lipworth L, Tarone R, McLaughlin J. The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2006;176(6 Pt 1):
23538.
3. Chow W, Devesa S, Waren J. Rising incidence of
renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA 1999;
281(17):162831.
1998;51(2):2035.
5. Marshall F, Dietrick D, Baumgartner W, et al. Surgical
management of renal cell carcinoma with intracaval
neoplastic extension above the hepatic veins.
J Urol 1988;139(6):116672.
6. Skinner DG, Pfister RF, Colvin R. Extension of renal
cell carcinoma into the vena cava: the rationale for
aggressive surgical management. J Urol 1972;
107(5):7116.
7. Neves R, Zincke H. Surgical treatment of renal cancer with vena cava extension. Br J Urol 1987;59(5):
3905.
8. Montie J, el Amnar R, Pontes J, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava tumor thrombi. Surg
Gynecol Obstet 1991;173(2):10715.
9. Swierzewski D, Swierzewski M, Libertino J. Radical
nephrectomy in patients with renal cell carcinoma
with venous, vena caval, and atrial extension. Am
J Surg 1994;168(2):2059.
10. Emmott R, Hayne L, Katz I, et al. Prognosis of renal
cell carcinoma with vena cava and renal vein
involvement: an update. Am J Surg 1987;154(1):
4953.
11. Hatcher P, Anderson E, Paulson D, et al. Surgical
management of renal cell carcinoma invading the
vena cava. J Urol 1991;145(1):203.
12. Zini L, Destrieux-Garnier L, Leroy X, et al. Renal vein
ostium wall invasion of renal cell carcinoma with an
inferior vena cava tumor thrombus: prediction by
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
renal and vena caval vein diameters and prognostic

significance. J Urol 2008;179(2):4504.
Belis J, Pae W, Rohner T, et al. Cardiovascular evaluation before circulatory arrest for removal of vena
cava extension of renal carcinoma. J Urol 1989;
141(6):13027.
Treiger B, Humphrey L, Peterson C, et al. Transesophageal echocardiography in renal cell carcinoma:
an accurate diagnostic technique for intracaval neoplastic extension. J Urol 1991;145(6):113840.
Zielinski H, Szmigielski S, Petrovich Z. Comparison of
preoperative embolization followed by radical
nephrectomy with radical nephrectomy alone for renal
cell carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 2000;23(1):612.
Nakano H, Nihira H, Toge T. Treatment of renal
cancer patients by transcatheter embolization and
its effects on lymphocyte proliferative responses.
J Urol 1983;130(1):247.
Schwartz M, Smith E, Trost D, et al. Renal artery
embolization: clinical indications and experience
from over 100 cases. BJU Int 2006;99(4):8816.
Moinzadeh A, Libertino J. Prognostic significance of
tumor thrombus level in patients with renal cell carcinoma and venous tumor thrombus extension. Is all
T3b the same? J Urol 2004;171(2 Pt 1):598601.
Leibovich B, Cheville J, Lohse C, et al. Cancer specific survival for patients with pT3 renal cell carcinomacan the 2002 Primary Tumor Classification
be improved? J Urol 2005;173(3):7169.
Kim H, Zisman A, Han K, et al. Prognostic significance of venous thrombus in renal cell carcinoma.
Are renal vein and inferior vena cava involvement
different? J Urol 2004;171(2 Pt 1):58891.
Patard J, Kim H, Lam J, et al. Use of the University of
California Los Angeles integrated staging system to
predict survival in renal cell carcinoma: an international
multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(16):331622.
Kattan M, Reuter V, Motzer R, et al. A postoperative
prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 2001;166(1):637.
Frank I, Blute M, Cheville J, et al. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell
score. J Urol 2002;168(6):2395400.
Canes D, Wotkowicz C, Vanni A, et al. Prognostic
significance of tumor thrombus level and perinephric fat invasion: the debate continues for pT3 disease [abstract 713]. Atlanta (GA): AUA; 2006.
Robson C, Churchill B, Anderson W. The results of
radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 1969;101:297301.
Wotkowicz C, Libertino J, Sorcini A, et al. Management of renal cell carcinoma with vena cava and
atrial thrombus: minimal access vs median sternotomy with circulatory arrest. BJU Int 2006;98(2):
28997.

27. Svensson L, Crawford E, Hess K, et al. Deep hypothermia with circulatory arrest. Determinants of
stroke and early mortality in 656 patients. J Thorac
Cardiovasc Surg 1993;106(1):1928.
28. Fitzgerald J, Tripathy U, Svennson L, et al. Radical
nephrectomy with vena caval thrombectomy using
a minimal access approach for cardiopulmonary
bypass. J Urol 1998;159(4):12923.
29. Cosgrove D, Sabik J. Minimally invasive approach
for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1996;
62(2):5967.
30. Svensson L, Libertino J, Sorcini A, et al. Minimal
access right atrial exposure for tumor extensions
into the inferior vena cava. J Thorac Cardiovasc
Surg 2001;121(3):58990.
31. Foster R, Mahomed Y, Bihrle R, et al. Use of cavalatrial shunt for resection of caval tumor thrombus
in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1988;140(6):13701.
32. Burt M. Inferior vena caval involvement by renal cell
carcinoma. Use of venovenous bypass as adjunct during resection. Urol Clin North Am 1991;18(3):43744.
33. Ciancio G, Livingstone A, Soloway M. Surgical
management of renal cell carcinoma with tumor thrombus in the renal and inferior vena cava: the University of
Miami experience in using liver transplantation techniques. Eur Urol 2007;51(4):98894.
34. Ciancio G, Vaidya A, Savoie M, et al. Management of
renal cell carcinoma with level III thrombus in the
inferior vena cava. J Urol 2002;168(4 Pt 1):13747.
35. Ciancio G, Soloway M. Renal cell carcinoma with tumor
thrombus extending above diaphragm: avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass. Urology 2005;66(2):26670.
36. DAncona CA, Petrucci O Jr, Otsuka R. Renal cell carcinoma with thrombus in the inferior vena cava: extracorporeal circulation and deep hypothermia without
open-chest surgery. Int Braz J Urol 2005;31(1):4950.
37. Chowdury U, Mishra A, Seth A, et al. Novel
techniques for tumor thrombectomy for renal cell
carcinoma with intraatrial tumor thrombus. Ann
Thorac Surg 2007;83(5):17316.
38. Zini L, Haulon S, Leroy X, et al. Endoluminal occlusion of the inferior vena cava in renal cell carcinoma
with retro- or suprahepatic caval thrombus. BJU Int
2006;97(6):121620.
39. Kapoor A, Nguan C, Al-Shaiji T, et al. Laparoscopic
management of advanced renal cell carcinoma with
level I renal vein thrombus. Urology 2006;68(3):5147.
40. Varkarakis I, Bhayani S, Allaf M, et al. Laparoscopicassisted nephrectomy with inferior vena cava tumor
thrombectomy: preliminary results. Urology 2004;
64(5):9259.
41. Meraney A, Gill I, Desai M, et al. Laparoscopic inferior vena cava and right atrial thrombectomy utilizing
deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. J Endourol
2003;17(5):27583.
42. Pruthi R, Angell S, Brooks J, et al. Partial
nephrectomy and caval thrombectomy for renal
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
cell carcinoma in a solitary kidney with an accessory

renal vein. BJU Int 1999;83(1):1423.
Angermeier K, Novick A, Streem S, et al. Nephronsparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma with venous
involvement. J Urol 1990;144(6):13525.
Sengupta S, Zincke H, Leibovich B, et al. Surgical
treatment of stage pT3b renal cell carcinoma in solitary kidneys: a case series. BJU Int 2005;96(1):547.
Blute M, Boorjian S, Leibovich B, et al. Results of
inferior vena caval interruption by Greenfield filter,
ligation or resection during radical nephrectomy
and tumor thrombectomy. J Urol 2007;178(2):4405.
Rabbani F, Hakimian P, Reuter V, et al. Renal vein or
inferior vena caval extension in patients with renal
cortical tumors: impact of tumor histology. J Urol
2004;172(3):105761.
Boorjian S, Sengupta S, Blute M. Renal cell carcinoma: vena caval involvement. BJU Int 2007;99
(5 Pt B):123944.
Flanigan RC, Mickisch G, Sylvester R, et al. Cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic
renal cancer: a combined analysis. J Urol 2004;
171(3):10716.
Pantuck A, Belldegrun A, Figlin R. Nephrectomy and
interleukin-2 for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
N Engl J Med 2001;345(23):17112.
Barney J, Churchill E. Adenocarcinoma of the kidney
with metastases to the lung: cured nephrectomy and
lobectomy. J Urol 1939;42:26976.
Hofmann HS, Neef H, Krohe K, et al. Prognostic factors and survival after pulmonary resection of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2005;48:7782.
Assouad J, Petkova B, Berna P, et al. Renal cell carcinoma lung metastases surgery: pathologic findings
and prognostic factors. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:
111420.
Blute M, Leibovich B, Lohse C, et al. The Mayo Clinic
experience with surgical management, complications
and outcome for patients with renal cell carcinoma
and venous tumor thrombus. BJU Int 2004;94:3341.
Terakawa T, Miyake H, Takenaka A, et al. Clinical
outcome of surgical management for patients with
renal cell carcinoma involving the inferior vena
cava. Int J Urol 2004;14:7814.
Klatte T, Pnatuck A, Riggs S, et al. Prognostic factors
for renal cell carcinoma with tumor thrombus extension. J Urol 2007;178:118995.
Parekh D, Cookson M, Chapman W, et al. Renal cell
carcinoma with renal vein and inferior vena caval
involvement: clinicopathological features, surgical
techniques and outcomes. J Urol 2005;173:1897902.
Ficarra V, Righetti R, DAmico, et al. Renal vein and vena
cava involvement does not affect prognosis in patients
with renal cell carcinoma. Oncology 2001;61:105.
Staehler G, Brkovic D. The role of radical surgery for
renal cell carcinoma with extension into the vena
cava. J Urol 2000;163:16715.
671
Lymph Node Dissection

in the Management
of Renal Cell Carcinoma
Bradley C. Leibovich, MD, Michael L. Blute, MD*
KEYWORDS
Radical nephrectomy and regional lymphadenectomy have been the cornerstone of therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) for several decades;1
however, debate regarding the potential advantages of lymph node dissection for RCC continues.
Currently, there are no definitive data indicating
a survival advantage to lymphadenectomy. Furthermore, systematic complete lymph node dissection adds time to the procedure and requires
manipulation of the great vessels, which some surgeons may find challenging. This article examines
the rationale for lymphadenectomy in the management of renal cell carcinoma and reviews the limited literature on the subject.
Carcinoma of the kidney and renal pelvis is expected to be newly diagnosed in over 54,000 patients in the United States and will result in over
13,000 deaths, accounting for approximately 3%
of all cancer deaths in 2008.2 About one-third of
new patients presenting with RCC have metastatic
disease. Another third of patients presenting with
localized disease eventually experience recurrence and progression. Approximately 25% of patients with metastatic RCC have clinically evident
lymphadenopathy. While metastatic disease is
highly resistant to chemotherapy, systemic therapy options now include targeted therapy in addition to immunotherapy.3 Thankfully, survival for
patients with RCC appears to be improving, with
decreasing death rates per 100,000 from 6.16 to
5.91 in men and from 2.95 to 2.72 in women between the early 1990s and today.2 This is reflected
in improved 5-year survival rates from 52% between 1974 and 1976 to 63% in 1999.4 Positive
nodes have been clearly shown to have an
independent adverse effect on outcome, regardless of other prognostic factors.57 For patients
with node-positive disease, 5-year survival rates
range between 5% and 35%. Most studies of
node-positive renal cell carcinoma report 5-year
survival rates of about 15%.8 Fig. 1 demonstrates
the impact of lymph node status on cancer-specific survival among patients treated surgically for
RCC at the Mayo Clinic.
Proponents of lymphadenectomy point to higher
survival rates for patients undergoing radical nephrectomy plus extended lymph node dissection,
compared with historical studies that did not include routine lymphadenectomy. Opponents point
to the high rates of hematogenous metastases and
question the value of lymph node dissection in a
disease that follows an unpredictable course. To
definitively address the potential benefit of lymphadenectomy in RCC, the European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary
Group launched a head-to-head randomized
phase 3 trial at multiple European centers in 1988.
The trial, which completed enrollment in 1992, is
designed to compare the long-term results of radical nephrectomy with complete lymphadenectomy
(n 5 383) against radical nephrectomy alone (n 5
389) in patients without evidence of metastases.
Early results indicate that complete lymph node
dissection did not increase morbidity associated
with radical nephrectomy. Pathology confirmed
lymph node metastases in 3.3% of clinically negative nodes after lymphadenectomy. However, survival in the study so far had been reported to be
excellent overall and more follow-up time is needed
to compare tumor-free survival and overall survival
Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA

E-mail address: blute.michael@mayo.edu (M.L. Blute).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 673678
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.011
Carcinoma, renal cell Kidney neoplasms

Nephrectomy Lymph node excision
674
Leibovich & Blute
Fig.1. Cancerspecific survival from time of radical nephrectomy by lymph node status.
between the lymphadenectomy and non-lymphadenectomy groups.9 While results are pending, debate will continue regarding the need for
lymphadenectomy in RCC patients.
Although the role of nephron-sparing surgery for
renal masses under 7 cm continues to evolve,10,11
the appropriate surgical treatment for large renal
masses has not changed substantively since Robson and colleagues1 first reported increased survival in a small cohort of patients who received
lymphadenectomy in 1969. Surgical excision of
solid tumors was common by the late nineteenth
century.12 After Halsted demonstrated the efficacy
of extensive regional lymphadenectomy for breast
cancer in 1894, radical excision and regional lymphadenectomy gradually evolved as the standard
of care for most carcinomas. During the first half
of the twentieth century simple nephrectomy became the standard treatment for localized RCC.
The procedure typically involved removal of the
kidney from the surrounding Gerotas fascia. Surgeons generally left the perirenal fat, adrenal
gland, and regional lymph nodes in situ.
The first radical nephrectomy, removing the kidney, adrenal gland, and the surrounding Gerotas
fascia, was reported by Mortensen in 1948.13 The
reported rationale for the extent of surgery was
the observation that pathology studies revealed
perirenal fat infiltration in 13% of renal tumors;
therefore, removal of the fat and the organs contained within was postulated to increase survival.
In the 1960s, Robson and colleagues1,14 added retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy to radical nephrectomy and reported improved 5-year survival rates.
The first systematic survey of lymphatic drainage from the kidneys was published in 1935,
when Parker15 reported on the dissection of
cadavers and stillborn infants to detail the renal
lymphatic system. For the right kidney, the firstechelon nodes are the precaval, retrocaval, and
interaortocaval lymph nodes. The paracaval nodes

are not a primary drainage route for the right kidney. For the left kidney, the primary drainage nodes include the para-aortic, preaortic, and
retroaortic lymph nodes. By the early 1990s other
groups had confirmed Parkers findings by mapping the sites of involved nodes in node-positive
patients who underwent extended lymph node
dissection.12 Right kidney metastases were most
commonly found in the interaortocaval and retrocaval area. The hilar and paracaval nodes were
less frequently involved. Most left kidney metastases were found in the hilar, para-aortic, and retroaortic areas. Isolated metastases were also found
in the ipsilateral iliac nodes and in the supraclavicular nodes.
A hilar lymphadenectomy removes only the lymph
nodes surrounding the renal vessels, while a regional
dissection typically includes the para-aortic region
on the left and the paracaval area on the right.
Such a procedure may be adequate for tumors of
the left kidney, but would miss the most common
site for lymphatic metastases from the right kidney,
the interaortocaval area. If the urologist wishes to
minimize the risk of leaving nodal metastases in
situ, the authors advocate an extended lymphadenectomy. On the left side, an extended dissection
includes removal of the preaortic, para-aortic, retroaortic, interaortocaval, and precaval lymphatic tissue from the diaphragm to the bifurcation of the
aorta. On the right side, extended dissection
includes removal of the precaval, paracaval, retrocaval, interaortocaval, and preaortic lymph nodes.
There are only two reasons to perform an extended lymphadenectomy in conjunction with
a radical nephrectomy: one is to improve staging
accuracy. Although modern imaging techniques,
such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and positron emission
tomography offer excellent diagnostic and staging, none are able to reliably predict nodal involvement. In terms of staging RCC, the overall
accuracy of CT scanning, generally accepted as
the most sensitive and accurate imaging method
for staging, ranges from 61% to 91%. Future advances in imaging, such as the use of lymphotrophic ferromagnetic nanoparticles in conjunction
with MRI, may allow detection of lymphatic metastases in patients without overt lymphadenopathy.16 Perhaps a more debatable rationale for
lymphadenectomy is to improve patient outcomes
by removing overt or subclinical lymph node metastases. It is possible that lymphadenectomy
may be beneficial because of other mechanisms,
such as removal of potential immunosuppressive
factors in antigen-primed lymph nodes in the absence of metastases.
Lymph Node Dissection in the Management of RCC

Terrone and colleagues recently examined the
relationship between the accuracy of tumor staging and the number of nodes examined by retrospectively reviewing the number of lymph nodes
removed during radical nephrectomy for RCC in
725 patients. Of the 725 cases, 608 (84%) had
lymph nodes removed. Of the 608 patients with
nodes identified pathologically, 13.6% had lymphatic metastases. Interestingly, the rate of positive lymph nodes was higher if more than 12
nodes were found with 21% positive nodes in patients with greater than or equal to 13 nodes and
10% positive for patients with fewer than 13 nodes
in the specimen. The investigators concluded that
lymphadenectomy is essential to properly stage
a tumor, regardless of the potential therapeutic
impact. With the recent introduction of several
targeted therapies for RCC, and in the setting of
ongoing clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for high
risk resected RCC without hematogenous metastases, accurate staging will become increasingly
important.17
The radiographic finding of enlarged lymph nodes in patients with renal masses has been shown
to have poor correlation with pathology. Studer
and colleagues18 reviewed the CT scans of 163
patients with RCC. CT scans were falsely negative
in five patients. Furthermore, among 43 patients
with retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy by CT criteria (lymph nodes 1 cm2.2 cm), only 18 (42%) had
lymph node metastases. The 58% of patients with
lymphadenopathy by CT criteria and no pathologically confirmed lymph node metastases were
found to have only inflammatory changes or follicular hyperplasia. Lymphadenopathy on CT because of inflammatory changes or follicular
hyperplasia was more common among patients
with venous tumor thrombus or tumor necrosis.
This study further supports the need for extended
lymphadenectomy in patients where accurate
staging is important.
Modern evidence for the potential therapeutic
benefit of lymphadenectomy in conjunction with
radical nephrectomy is mounting. In 1991 Herrlinger and colleagues19 reported a significant survival advantage in a study of 511 patients who
were treated with extended lymphadenectomy
with radical nephrectomy, compared with those
whose lymph nodes were removed only if clinically
abnormal or for staging purposes (the investigators referred to this group as facultative lymphadenectomy). In patients with left kidney tumors,
extended lymphadenectomy involved the removal
of all preaortic, para-aortic, and retroaortic lymph
nodes from the diaphragm to the bifurcation of the
aorta. For right kidney tumors, all paracaval, precaval, retrocaval, and interaortocaval nodes were
removed from the diaphragm to the bifurcation

of the vena cava. Operative mortality was 1% in
the extended lymphadenectomy group and 3.8%
in the facultative lymphadenectomy group.
Herrlinger and colleagues19 reported substantial
differences in the rate of node-positive disease
and outcome between the two surgical groups.
In the extended lymphadenectomy group, pathologists found 17 or more nodes removed with each
radical nephrectomy. In the facultative lymphadenectomy group, more than half of patients had no
nodes removed, one to five nodes were removed
in 30% of patients, and more than five nodes in
10% of patients. The incidence of positive nodes
in the lymphadenectomy group was 17.5% versus
10% for the nonlymphadenectomy group. There
was a significant difference in survival between
the two treatment groups, with 5- and 10-year survivals of 66% and 56.1%, compared with 58% and
40.9% for the extended lymphadenectomy and
facultative lymphadenectomy groups, respectively. The authors reported that the survival advantage was more pronounced for patients with
low-stage tumors. In patients with organ-confined
RCC, extended lymphadenectomy produced a
5-year survival rate of 91.6% and a 10-year survival rate of 80.2%, compared with 81.3% and
54% for patients who did not receive the extended
lymph node dissection. For patients with localized
RCC who had extra-renal disease, survival was
76% at 5 years and 58.2% at 10 years, compared
with 54.5% and 41.2% without lymphadenectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in survival for more advanced patients.
Herrlinger and colleagues concluded that there
could be no doubt that extended lymphadenectomy improves survival for patients with low-stage
disease. The improvement, they concluded, is a result of the removal of subclinical microscopic metastases in the regional lymph nodes that would
otherwise have resulted in dissemination of disease after radical nephrectomy alone. Assuming
that patients are reasonable candidates for
curative surgery, the group concluded that there
is no preoperative or intraoperative staging procedure that could effectively define any group of patients who would not benefit from extended
lymphadenectomy.
Phillips and Messing20 retrospectively reviewed
the impact of lymphadenectomy with regard to the
subsequent development of local recurrence of
RCC following radical nephrectomy in 1993. Patients with nodal metastases who received radical
nephrectomy without lymphadenectomy had a local recurrence rate of 86%. None of the patients
with node-positive disease who received radical
nephrectomy plus lymphadenectomy experienced
675
676
Leibovich & Blute

a local recurrence. There was no increase in
morbidity of the surgery as a result of
lymphadenectomy.
Schafhauser and colleagues21 conducted a retrospective review of 1,035 patients with RCC
treated between 1974 and 1993. Patients were
classified based on the extent of the lymphadenectomy into three groups: group A had a systematic extended lymphadenectomy, group B had
only grossly abnormal nodes resected, and group
C had no lymph nodes resected. Group A patients
had the larger tumors with higher stage and grade
RCC relative to groups B and C. Despite the fact
that patients in group A had more adverse tumor
characteristics, the highest mean survival rate at
5 years (70.1% compared with 61.8% and
65.6%) and 10 years (58.3% compared with
50.4% and 44.5%) was seen in the group A patients. The investigators concluded that radical
nephrectomy plus extended lymphadenectomy
benefits at least 4% of all patients.
More recently, Pantuck and colleagues8 retrospectively reviewed 900 patients treated surgically
for RCC. The study population was comprised of
a high proportion of patients with clinically evident
adenopathy and advanced RCC. The investigators
found that lymphadenectomy offered no benefit in
terms of survival or recurrence of disease in
patients with clinically negative lymph nodes. The
investigators concluded that the lack of demonstrable benefit in this study was likely a result of
the low incidence of positive nodes discovered
based on pathology alone. Fewer than 8% of
node-positive cases in Pantucks study were discovered upon pathology after resection. The other
92% of positive nodes had been identified either
pre- or intraoperatively. However, among patients
with lymph node-positive RCC a distinct advantage in survival was demonstrated for those who
underwent lymphadenectomy versus those without lymphadenectomy. Furthermore, patients
treated with lymphadenectomy and subsequent
interleukin-2 based immunotherapy had a trend
toward improved response to systemic therapy.
The study concluded that when positive nodes
are found, they should be resected when technically feasible.
Recently Minervini and colleagues22 retrospectively reviewed 167 radical nephrectomy cases
and found no difference in survival between 108
patients with radical nephrectomy alone and 59
patients with regional lymphadenectomy. Regional lymphadenectomy was defined as removal
of the lymph nodes anterior, posterior, and lateral
to the ipsilateral great vessel from the renal
pedicle to the level of the inferior mesenteric
artery. Among the 59 patients that had
a regional lymphadenectomy, 10 had clinically

evident lymphadenopathy. Only 1 of 49 patients
without lymphadenopathy had pathologically involved lymph nodes. The investigators conclude
that in the absence of lymphadenopathy there is
no benefit to lymphadenectomy.
Canfield and colleagues23 recently reviewed the
records of 40 patients treated with radical nephrectomy and regional lymphadenectomy (excluding the interaortocaval lymph nodes), all of
whom had positive lymph nodes and no evidence
of hematogeneous metastases. Median cancerspecific survival was 20 months, and with a median
follow-up of 17.7 months 30% of patients remained free of RCC. The investigators suggest
that aggressive resection of lymph node metastases may impart a survival advantage based on
these findings. The authors have recently reviewed
their experience with resection of isolated metachronous recurrence of RCC in the retroperitoneal
lymph nodes.24 Fifteen patients who underwent
surgical resection of isolated, metachronous
recurrence of RCC in the retroperitoneal lymph nodes following radical nephrectomy were compared with patients who had lymph node-positive
RCC at the time of nephrectomy and to patients
who underwent complete resection of a solitary
metachronous metastasis of RCC at another site.
No intra- or postoperative mortality occurred. Six
of the 15 patients that underwent resection of
metachronous lymph node metastasis subsequently died from RCC at a median of 18 months
(range 633.6) following resection. The median
cause-specific survival was 33.3 months for patients with metachronous lymph node metastases
versus 20.8 months and 46.9 months for patients
with synchronous lymph node metastases and
metachronous nonlymph node metastases,
respectively.
It is clear that without prospective studies of
standardized lymph node resection, no survival
advantage can be proven based on the varied retrospective data to date. The question, then, is how
to identify the small (3%8%) cohort of patients
with unidentified positive nodes for whom extended lymphadenectomy is most likely to be useful and which nodes should be removed. The
authors have recently analyzed more than 1,600
patients with clear cell RCC from the Mayo Clinic
Nephrectomy Registry.25 The study identified five
features that were associated with lymph node
metastases: primary tumor stage T3 or T4, nuclear
grade 3 or 4, tumor size 10 cm or greater, presence of a sarcomatoid component, and presence
of histologic tumor necrosis.
Patients with none of the risk features or any one
feature have a low likelihood of regional lymph
Lymph Node Dissection in the Management of RCC

node involvement (0.6%). But patients exhibiting
any two of the five features have a 4.4% risk of regional lymph node involvement and patients with
all five features have a greater than 50% risk of
lymph node-positive disease. The authors therefore suggest that lymphadenectomy is indicated
for patients with any two or more risk features,
which can be determined by frozen section analysis intraoperatively.
In summary, there are adequate data to suggest
that patients can benefit from resection of clinically
evident lymphadenopathy at the time of radical
nephrectomy. There are currently insufficient
data regarding patients with clinically negative retroperitoneal lymph nodes to mandate lymphadenectomy at the time of radical nephrectomy. The
authors bias is that patients with large tumors,
high grade or stage, or other adverse features
should have a lymphadenectomy, and that more
extensive lymph node resection will be more likely
to confer maximum benefits. For right side tumors,
lymphadenectomy should include dissection of
the vena cava from the diaphragm to the bifurcation of the vessels, including the precaval, paracaval, retrocaval, and interaortocaval nodes. For
left side tumors, dissection should include the
preaortic, para-aortic, and retroaortic nodes from
diaphragm to the bifurcation.
REFERENCES
1. Robson CJ, Churchill BM, Anderson W. The results
of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 1969;101:297301.
2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:7196.
3. Garcia JA, Rini BI. Recent progress in the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma. CA Cancer
J Clin 2007;57:11225.
4. Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Dorey F, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Impact on
survival and benefits of immunotherapy. Cancer
2003;97:29953002.
5. Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell
score. J Urol 2002;168:2395400.
6. Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. Prediction
of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients
with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification
tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer 2003;97:
166371.
7. Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, et al. A scoring algorithm to predict survival for patients with
metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma:
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials.

J Urol 2005;174:175963 [discussion: 1763].
Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Dorey F, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with retroperitoneal lymph nodes: role of
lymph node dissection. J Urol 2003;169:207683.
Blom JH, van Poppel H, Marechal JM, et al. Radical
nephrectomy with and without lymph node dissection: preliminary results of the EORTC randomized
phase III protocol 30881. EORTC Genitourinary
Group. Eur Urol 1999;36:5705.
106670.
Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, et al. Radical nephrectomy for pT1a renal masses may be associated with decreased overall survival compared
with partial nephrectomy. J Urol 2008;179:46871
[discussion: 4723].
Wood DP Jr. Role of lymphadenectomy in renal cell
carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 1991;18:4216.
Mortensen H. Transthoracic nephrectomy. J Urol
1948;60:8558.
Robson CJ. Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1963;89:3742.
Parker A. Studies on the main posterior lymph channels of the abdomen and their connections with the
lymphatics of the genito-urinary system. Am J Anat
1935;56:40943.
Saksena MA, Saokar A, Harisinghani MG. Lymphotropic nanoparticle enhanced MR imaging (LNMRI)
technique for lymph node imaging. Eur J Radiol
2006;58:36774.
Terrone C, Guercio S, De Luca S, et al. The number
of lymph nodes examined and staging accuracy in
renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2003;91(1):3740.
Studer UE, Scherz S, Scheidegger J, et al. Enlargement of regional lymph nodes in renal cell carcinoma is often not due to metastases. J Urol 1990;
144:2435.
Herrlinger A, Schrott KM, Schott G, et al. What are
the benefits of extended dissection of the regional
renal lymph nodes in the therapy of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1991;146:12247.
Phillips E, Messing E. Role of lymphadenectomy in
the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Urology
1993;41:915.
Schafhauser W, Ebert A, Brod J, et al. Lymph node
involvement in renal cell carcinoma and survival
chance by systematic lymphadenectomy. Anticancer Res 1999;19:15738.
Minervini A, Lilas L, Morelli G, et al. Regional lymph
node dissection in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: is it useful in patients with no suspected adenopathy before or during surgery? BJU Int 2001;
88:16972.
677
678
Leibovich & Blute

23. Canfield SE, Kamat AM, Sanchez-Ortiz RF, et al.
Renal cell carcinoma with nodal metastases in the
absence of distant metastatic disease (clinical stage
TxN1-2M0): the impact of aggressive surgical resection on patient outcome. J Urol 2006;175:8649.
24. Boorjian SA, Crispen PL, Lohse CM, et al. Surgical
resection of isolated retroperitoneal lymph node
recurrence of renal cell carcinoma following nephrectomy. J Urol 2008;180(1):99103.

25. Blute ML, Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, et al. A protocol for performing extended lymph node dissection
using primary tumor pathological features for patients treated with radical nephrectomy for clear
cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2004;172:4659.
Surgical Intervention
in Patients with
Metastatic Renal Cancer :
Metastasectomy
and Cy toreductive
Nephrectomy
Paul Russo, MD, FACSa,*, Matthew Francis OBrien, MDb
KEYWORDS
Renal cancer Cytoreductive
Kidney cancer Metastasectomy
a complete remission. Median patient survival

for metastatic renal cancer patients is in the range
of 10 to 12 months.2 Rare spontaneous remissions of metastatic disease sites occur in less
than 1% of cases and have been reported in
both surgical series and the control arms of clinical trials with or without previous surgical intervention. New systemic chemotherapy agents,
including multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors
(TKIs) (sunitinib, sorafenib) and mammalian target
of rapamycin kinase inhibitors (temsirolimus,
RAD001) are proving highly effective in clinical
trials3,4 and are now actively being investigated
in neoadjuvant and adjuvant surgical trials in
patients with poor prognostic renal tumors.
Surgical intervention in any patient with metastatic renal cancer has one of two aims: (1) through
metastasectomy, to render a patient clinically free
of all sites of metastases, or (2), through cytoreductive nephrectomy to resect the primary tumor
in the face of unresectable metastatic disease before the initiation of systemic therapy. The occasionally unpredictable natural history of renal
cancer and varying patient selection criteria can
make the interpretation of results from different
centers difficult. Operative intervention in the
a
Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Weill Cornell College of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, N Y 10021, USA
b
Urological Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, N Y 10021, USA
E-mail address: russop@mskcc.org (P. Russo).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 679686

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.009
There will be an estimated 54,390 new renal tumors and 13,010 deaths from renal cancer in
the United States in 2008.1 Approximately 30%
to 40% of patients with malignant renal cortical
tumors will either present with or later develop
metastatic disease. In metastatic renal cancer,
surgical intervention may be performed alone or
in combination with systemic therapy. Although
the evolution of metastatic disease usually occurs
within 2 years after the radical or partial nephrectomy, disease-free intervals of up to 30 years and
metastases to unusual sites (eg, endocrine
glands, digits) can cause diagnostic dilemmas.
Unlike patients with renal cortical tumors detected incidentally during abdominal imaging obtained for other reasons, the vast majority of
patients with metastatic renal tumors have large,
locally advanced tumors often with regional nodal
and or renal vein or inferior venal extension. Approximately 90% of the metastatic renal tumors
are of the conventional clear cell histologic subtype. Unfortunately for metastatic renal cancer
patients, systemic chemotherapy, cytokine therapy, and hormonal manipulations alone or in
combination have low overall response rates
(10%15%) and are rarely associated with
680
Russo & OBrien

face of metastatic renal cancer is controversial
and is the subject of this review.
METASTASECTOMY
In 1939 Barney and Churchill5 first reported a patient who underwent nephrectomy and a resection
of an isolated pulmonary metastasis for a renal
cancer only to die 23 years later of coronary artery
disease. Over the last 60 years, the surgical resection of limited metastatic disease (metastasectomy) was offered to patients and selectively
performed in the absence of effective systemic
therapies. The reported selection criteria for this
aggressive surgical approach varied from study
to study and reported significant prognostic factors included the site and number of metastatic
deposits, completeness of resection, patient performance status, and the disease-free interval
from treatment of the primary tumor to the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Complete resection of
isolated metastases was associated with 5-year
survival rates of between 35% and 60%. Despite
successful resection of metastatic disease and
associated patient survival, these studies lacked
definitive proof that the surgical intervention itself,
as opposed to patient selection factors and the
natural history of renal cancer, led to the observed
outcomes.69 Pogrebniak and colleagues10 reported 23 patients who underwent resection of
pulmonary metastases from renal cell carcinoma
(RCC), 15 of whom had previously been treated
with IL-2based immunotherapy. Patients with resectable lesions had a longer survival (mean 49
months) than those patients with unresectable lesions (mean 16 months). Furthermore, in this
study, survival was not dependent upon the number of nodules removed. The investigators concluded that patients with metastatic RCC should
be offered an operation if the likelihood that complete resection of all sites of disease were high. Favorable subgroups include those patients with
a solitary site of metastases and disease-free interval to the development of metastases of greater
than 1 year. It should be noted that occasionally
sites of disease presumed to be metastatic RCC
are instead secondary tumors (eg, pancreatic islet
cell tumor) of either benign or malignant histology.
This diagnostic dilemma may be addressed in the
future with the further development of conventional clear cell specific immunopositron emission tomographic scanning with 124-I cG250
scanning.11
In a report from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), prognostic factors associated with enhanced survival in 278 patients who
underwent surgical metastasectomy included
a disease-free interval of greater than 12 months

(55% versus 9% 5-year overall survival), solitary
versus multiple sites of metastases (54% versus
29% 5-year overall survival), and age younger
than 60 years (49% versus 35% 5-year survival).
Patient survival was longer when the solitary site
of resection was lung (54% 5-year survival) compared with brain (18% 5-year survival). Twentynine percent of patients with completely resected
multiple sites of metastases within a given organ
survived 5 years, again suggesting that complete
resection of all metastatic deposits was more important than the number metastatic deposits
within a given site.12 Although the curative impact
of metastasectomy is uncertain, operative intervention can also provide effective palliation for
symptomatic metastatic disease to such sites as
bone, brain, and adrenal gland.13,14 MSKCC investigators recently reported their experience
with 61 patients who underwent nephrectomy followed by complete metastasectomy from 1989 to
2003. Of these patients, 59% had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) greater than 90, 90% had
conventional clear cell histology, and 62% had
renal tumors that were greater than stage T2.
Median survival was 30 months (Fig. 1).15 A
prospective and randomized clinical trial comparing metastasectomy to best standard systemic
therapy could define the exact role of this
approach.
CYTOREDUCTIVE NEPHRECTOMY
The role of radical nephrectomy in patients with
extensive metastatic renal cancer, when complete
metastasectomy is not possible, has long been
debated. Given the lack of effective systemic therapies and the unpredictable natural history of metastatic RCC, many oncologists referred patients to
surgeons for resection of the primary tumor before
cytokine-based therapy. In theory, cytoreductive
radical nephrectomy is performed to remove
a large, potentially immunosuppressive, tumor
burden; to obtain accurate tumor histologic subtyping; and to prevent complications related to
the primary tumor during systemic therapy. On
rare occasions, a highly symptomatic tumor is removed for symptom palliation after the failure of
conservative palliation measures (eg, unremitting
gross hematuria or flank pain not relieved by
conservative care or angioinfarction). Radical nephrectomy should not be done to induce spontaneous remission, a phenomena observed only in
4 of 474 patients (0.8%) treated with radical nephrectomy alone in a study from the Cleveland
Clinic.16 Surgical mortality has been reported
from 2% to 11% for patients with large primary
Metastasectomy and Cytoreductive Nephrectomy

Fig. 1. Overall survival distribution of 91
patients undergoing operation in the
face of metastatic RCC at MSKCC from
1989 to 2006. This includes 61 patients
undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy/
metastasectomy (median survival 28.3
months) and 30 patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy alone (median
survival 12.0 months).
renal tumors and metastatic disease. The possibility that the patient may not recover sufficiently to
receive systemic immunotherapy after preparatory
radical nephrectomy is of concern to surgeons and
medical oncologists alike. In a study of 195 patients with metastatic RCC treated at the National
Cancer Institute, 121 patients (62%) were eligible
for high-dose IL-2 following cytoreductive nephrectomy, leading to a response rate of 18%.
Yet, 38% of the patients in this series who underwent nephrectomy never received any immunotherapy either because of complications of
nephrectomy or because of rapid clinical deterioration from disease progression.17 Some oncology
groups recommend adjuvant radical nephrectomy
only if initial systemic therapy was effective in initiating clinical regression of metastatic sites. This
avoids the surgical morbidity.18,19
Two randomized and prospective clinical trials
have attempted to further define the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the treatment of metastatic renal cancerone in the United States
organized by the Southwest Oncology Group
(SWOG), and the other in Europe organized by
the European Organization Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Both used similar entry
criteria comparing treatment for metastatic renal
cancer with cytoreductive nephrectomy plus interferon alpha-2b versus interferon alpha-2b alone.
In the SWOG trial, between 1991 and 1998, 246
patients with metastatic renal cancer and with the
tumor-bearing kidney in place from 80 participating institutions were randomly assigned to the
two groups of 123 patients each. Eligible patients
had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic RCC in tissue obtained by needle biopsy
or aspiration of a least one measurable metastatic
site or the primary tumor with metastases beyond

the regional lymphatics involving a tumor of any
size or any nodal status. Renal tumors with inferior
vena caval extension below the hepatic veins were
included. Patients were excluded if they received
any prior systemic chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, cytokine therapy, biological response modifier therapy, or radiation therapy either to the
primary tumor or any metastatic site. They were
also excluded if the serum bilirubin was threefold
higher than normal, if the serum creatinine was
greater than 3.0 mg/dL, or if there was a history
of significant cardiac arrhythmias or concomitant
cancers less than 5 years before. Patients needed
an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Five patients were found
to be ineligible because the pathologic diagnosis
was incorrect (3 in the surgery arm and 2 in the interferon-alone arm). Of the 120 eligible patients
analyzed in the nephrectomy-plus-interferon arm,
17 patients did not undergo the operation
(7 refused, 5 were deemed medically unfit, 3 were
unresectable, and 2 died before the operation). In
the 98 patients evaluated for surgical complications, 1 patient died after operation for unresectable tumor with wound dehiscence and
abdominal abscess with peritonitis, 2 patients
had cardiac ischemia or infarction, 2 had postoperative infections, and 1 had hypotension. Sixteen
patients had mild to moderate complications. In 76
of 98 patients (78%), no complications were reported. The mean hospitalization time was 8.2
days322 and the mean time to receive interferon
alfa-2b was 19.9 days. Two eligible patients, 1 in
each group, refused interferon therapy. One patient in the interferon group died of a treatmentrelated myocardial infarction and 23 patients
681
682
Russo & OBrien

(10 in surgical arm, 13 in interferon-only arm) had
severe complications due to interferon. The therapeutic effect of interferon in both arms of the study
was minimal for patients with measurable lesions
at the time of treatment initiation with 3 partial responses in the surgery arm and 3 responses, 1
complete and 2 partial, in the interferon-alone
arm. The extremely low rate of interferon responses in this study as opposed to other studies
may be attributable to more stringent criteria for
response used in the SWOG trial. At the time of
the final analysis before publication, only 20 of
the 241 (8%) eligible patients were alive. The patients who underwent cytoreductive nephrectomy
and interferon alfa-2b had a significantly improved
median survival of 11.1 months compared with 8.1
months for the interferon alfa-2balone group.20
The EORTC study accrued 85 patients with metastatic renal cancer between 1995 and 1998 and,
using a similar study design to the above-described SWOG protocol, randomly assigned
patients to receive interferon alfa-2b alone or cytoreductive radical nephrectomy plus interferon
alfa-2b. Two patients, 1 from each group, were ineligible and 4 patients in the cytoreductive surgery
arm did not undergo operation. Forty of the 75 patients received at least 16 weeks of interferon alfa2b therapy. Time to disease progression (5 versus
3 months) and median duration of survival (17 versus 7 months) significantly favored the patients in
the cytoreductive nephrectomyplusinterferon
alfa-2b arm of the study. In this study, there were
5 complete remissions registered (1 in the interferon-alone arm and 4 in the cytoreductive nephrectomy arm). There were 6 postoperative
complications, which included wound infection,
pneumothorax, pneumonia, fever of unknown origin, cardiac arrhythmia, and cerebellar syndrome.21 Investigators from SWOG and EORTC
later combined their data to analyze a total of
331 patients stratified at prerandomization by performance status (0 or 1), sites of metastases (lung
or other), and disease measurability. The combined analysis of these two trials yielded a median
survival of 13.6 months for the cytoreductive nephrectomyplusinterferon alpha-2b arm versus
7.8 months for interferon alpha-2b alone. There
was no difference in treatment effects according
to prerandomization stratification factors. Unlike
historical series, operative mortality in the combined experience was 1.5% (2 patients) and only
5.6% of patients did not proceed to interferon
therapy. These improved surgical outcomes are
likely a result of modern surgical techniques and
contemporary perioperative care.22 In a recent update of 30 patients undergoing cytoreductive radical nephrectomy at MSKCC, median survival was
12 months, which is considerably less than the 30

months observed in the nephrectomy/metastasectomy patients (see Fig. 1).15
While these trials show an apparent survival
benefit of cytoreductive nephrectomy, such benefits may in part be attributed to referral patterns,
surgical judgment, and patient selection, according to Bromwich and colleagues23 from Glasgow,
United Kingdom. In their study of 94 patients
with metastatic renal cancer evaluated from 1998
to 2001 for possible cytoreductive nephrectomy,
38 patients (40%) were considered inoperable
and 36 patients (38%) were felt to have an Eastern
Cooperative Oncology Group performance status
of greater than 1. Cytoreductive radical nephrectomy was offered to 20 patients (22%) with a performance status of 0 or 1 and performed in 19. Of
the 19, 13 patients began a course of immunotherapy (interferon) postoperatively. Seven patients
had treatment-related toxicity necessitating withdrawal from the study and 4 patients had progressive cancer despite the interferon. Four patients
were alive after cytoreductive nephrectomy
(mean 8 months, range 316 months) and 15
have died of disease (mean time to death 9.5
months, range 328 months).23 The general impact of cytoreductive surgery and systemic therapy in this group of patients was minimal.23
IMPORTANT PROGNOSTIC VARIABLES

Results of contemporary cytokine-based clinical
trials differ based on the clinical characteristics
of the patients such that some studies show
a modest benefit and others do not.24 Insight into
this inconsistency came from a study of 670 patients with metastatic RCC treated at MSKCC.
Risk factors associated with a shorter survival included low KPS (<80%), high lactate dehydogenase (LDH) (>1.5 upper limit of normal), low
hemoglobin, high corrected serum calcium (>10
mg/dL), and the absence of nephrectomy. Median
survival ranged from 4 to 13 months with the increasing presence of the above risk factors
strongly associated with decreased survival.25
Only 12 patients (1.8%) in this data set, all assigned to good or intermediate pretreatment risk
groups (KPS >80, prior nephrectomy), were longterm survivors (>5 years), 6 following cytokine
treatment (interferon alfa-2b, IL-2 alone, or in combination) chemotherapeutic agents (flutamide,
topotecan, N-methyl-formadmide) and 6 following
metastasectomy. These same risk factors also
predicted survival in 251 patients previously
treated on clinical trials and then entered into second-line clinical trials. For patients without any of
the risk factors (favorable group), the median

time to death was 22.1 months; for patients with
one of the risk factors (intermediate group), the
median time to death was 12 months; and for patients with two or three risk factors (poor risk), median time to death was 5 months.26 The presence
or absence of systemic symptoms at the time of
operation also strongly predicted for a poor survival in surgical series.27,28
These risk stratification studies are likely a reflection of the complex interactions between host defenses and the variable malignant potential of renal
tumors that directly effect patient survival. Investigators at MSKCC applied these same prognostic
variables to 118 initially nonmetastatic nephrectomy patients and also found that survival was
segregated by risk factors. At the time of the diagnosis of metastatic disease, a risk score based
upon time from nephrectomy (1 point if <12
months), serum corrected calcium (1 point if
>10mg/dL), hemoglobin (1 point if below normal),
serum LDH (1 point if >1.5 times upper limit of
normal), and KPS (1 point if <80%) was applied
to develop three risk groups. Patients were categorized into low (score of 0), intermediate (score
of 1 or 2), and high-risk subgroups (score of 35)
(Fig. 2). The median survival from the time of metastatic recurrence was 21 months and overall survival was strongly associated with risk groups.
Median survival for low risk, intermediate risk,
and high risk was 76, 25, and 6 months respectively.29 In subsequent analysis of 44 patients
undergoing metastasectomy involving 10 different
organs, patients designated as low risk (51%)
were more likely to undergo resection than intermediate risk (28%) or high risk (21%), confirming
that surgeons were selecting a healthier group of
metastatic patients to operate upon. In this subset
of patients, metastasectomy in low-risk patients
was significantly associated with improved survival compared with those low-risk patients who
did not have metastasectomy (hazards ratio 2.9,
P 5 .03, median survival not reached versus

56 months).30
NEOADJUVANT AND ADJUVANT THERAPY

CLINICAL TRIALS
For poor prognostic renal cancer patients with
massive tumors that are not resectable and for patients with massive renal tumors with regional adenopathy or other poor prognostic features that
are resected completely, numerous neoadjuvant
and adjuvant clinical trials have been initiated in
an attempt to improve survival. A variety of agents
are in now in clinical trials including cytokines (IL-2,
IL-12, interferon alpha), monoclonal antibodies
(cG250), heat shock protein (heat shock proteinpeptide complex96 [HSPPC-96]), and vaccines
(autologous human tumorderived vaccine, cd40 ligand vaccine).
An enhanced understanding of the molecular biology of the conventional clear cell histologic subtype, which accounts for 90% of the tumors that
metastasize, has led to the development of promising new Food and Drug Administration
approved systemic chemotherapy agents for
metastatic disease. These include the TKIs sunitinib and sorafenib, and the mammalian target of
rapamycin inhibitor temsorilimus. These agents
function in the clear cell carcinoma pathway,
which begins with a mutation in the Von HippelLindau gene (VHL), causing a loss of function of
its gene product,3,4 which normally targets hypoxia inducible factor (HIF) genes for ubiquination
and degradation, leading to up-regulation of HIFresponsive genes responsible for angiogenesis,
including the platelet-derived growth factor gene
(PDGF), the vascular endothelial growth factor
gene (VEGF), and the carbonic anhydrase 9 gene
(CaIX). This up-regulation is thought to induce
the renal tumorassociated neovascularity
observed with many primary and metastatic
Percent survival
Disease-Specific Survival By Risk Category

100
low-risk (0)
intermediate (1-2)
high (3-5)
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Follow-up from recurrence (months)

Log-rank p-value: <0.0001
Fig. 2. Disease-specific survival based on

risk category in 118 previously resected
surgical patients who developed interval
metastases (log-rank P < .0001).
683
684
Russo & OBrien
Fig. 3. (A) Massive 21.2-cm left RCC in 43-year-old male with numerous pulmonary metastases started on sunitinib,
50 mg/d. (B) Ten-months later, near complete resolution in pulmonary metastases and marked reduction in left
kidney primary to 15 cm. Radical nephrectomy revealed viable poorly differentiated clear cell carcinoma with
areas of necrosis.
conventional clear cell cancers.31,32 For the papillary and chromophobe carcinomas of the kidney,
patterns and sites of metastases are similar to
those for the conventional clear cell carcinoma,
but the molecular mechanisms are likely different.33 For unknown reasons, metastastic papillary
and chromophobe carcinomas are virtually unresponsive to systemic cytokine and TKI therapy.34
A complete description of these clinical trials is
available at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Medical oncologists and surgeons alike have
noticed remarkable regression of both the metastatic sites and primary tumor following TKI (sunitinib and sorafenib) administration and, in some
cases, resolution of distant metastases followed
by marked regression of the primary tumor, allowing for radical nephrectomy to be integrated into
the patient management of patients felt to be previously unresectable (Fig. 3). However, during the
break from TKI administration during the period
of postnephrectomy recovery, rapidly recurrent
distant metastatic disease has been noticed. Reinitiation of the TKI has lead to secondary response
in the same metastatic sites, suggesting that in
these patients chronic administration of TKI is required. In a recent report from MD Anderson Cancer Center, 44 patients treated with multitargeted
therapies before cytoreductive nephrectomy and
resections of locally recurrent RCC were compared with 58 matched patients treated with cytoreductive nephrectomy or resection alone. In this
study, 27.5% of the nephrectomies were done
using laparoscopic techniques. Complications
occurred in 39% of patients treated with preoperative TKI versus 28% treated with operation alone
(P 5 .287). The investigators concluded that the
preoperative treatment of patients before cytoreductive nephrectomy and resection does not significantly increase operative morbidity, which
was substantial in both groups, and, although the
ultimate value of this approach remains to be determined, it appears to be a comparable to cytoreductive nephrectomy and resection alone.35
SUMMARY
RCC represents a family of neoplasms possessing
unique molecular and cytogenetic defects with
90% of the metastases emanating from the conventional clear cell carcinoma subtype. For patients with metastatic renal cancer, prognostic
factors defined in systemic therapy clinical trials
stratify patients into good, intermediate, and
poor risk groups with median survival varying
from 4 to 13 months. These same factors also
stratify patients whose renal cancers were initially
resected completely and who then developed
subsequent metastatic disease. Metastasectomy
performed in low-risk patients was significantly associated with enhanced survival when compared
with low-risk patients not undergoing metastasectomy. Careful case selection by surgeons of relatively healthy patients with disease-free intervals
of greater than 1 year, which is associated with
subsequent survival, makes it difficult to distinguish between the natural history of metastatic renal cancer and direct therapeutic effect. Two
randomized, prospective clinical trials from the
EORTC and SWOG, analyzed both separately
and then together, demonstrated a modest survival advantage of approximately 6 months for patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy
followed by interferon alfa-2b. The mechanism
by which the cytoreductive nephrectomy benefits
the patient is not known but may relate to removing an immunosuppressive tumor burden. It is
our opinion that, once effective systemic agents
are developed, both metastasectomy and cytoreductive nephrectomy will play greater roles in consolidating clinical responses. Numerous adjuvant

and neoadjuvant clinical trials are underway using
a variety of agents in an attempt to improve overall
survival in surgical patients with locally advanced
and metastatic renal cancer. Preliminary reports
indicate that cytoreductive operations following
TKI administration does not increase perioperative
morbidity.
REFERENCES
2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:7196.
2. Motzer RJ, Russo P. Systemic therapy for renal cell
3. Bukowski RM, Wood LS. Renal cell carcinoma: state
of the art diagnosis and treatment. Clin Oncol 2008;
11:921.
4. OBrien F, Motzer R, Russo P. Sunitinib therapy in renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2008;101:133942.
5. Barney JD, Churchill EJ. Adenocarcinoma of the kidney with metastasis to the lung: cured by nephrectomy and lobectomy. J Urol 1939;42:26976.
6. Giuliani L, Giberti C, Martorana G, et al. Radical extensive surgery for renal cell carcinoma: long-term results and prognostic factors. J Urol 1990;143:46873.
7. Golimbu M, Joshi P, Sperber A, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: survival and prognostic factors. Urology
1986;27:291301.
8. Maldazys JD, deKernion JB. Prognostic factors in
metastatic renal carcinoma. J Urol 1986;136:3769.
9. Neves RJ, Zincke H, Taylor WF. Metastatic renal cell
cancer and radical nephrectomy: identification of
prognostic factors and patient survival. J Urol
1988;139:11736.
10. Pogrebniak HW, Haas G, Linehan WM, et al. Renal
cell carcinoma: resection of solitary and multiple metastases. Ann Thorac Surg 1992;54:338.
11. Divgi CR, Pandit-Taskar N, Jungbluth AA, et al. Preoperative characterization of clear-cell carcinoma
using iodine-124-labelled antibody chimeric G250
(124I-cG250) and PET in patients with renal masses:
a phase I trial. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:30410.
12. Kavolius JP, Mastorakos DP, Pavolvich C, et al. Resection of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin
Oncol 1998;16:22616.
13. Wronski M, Russo P, Galicich J, et al. Surgical resection of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma.
Urology 1996;47:18793.
14. Kim SH, Brennan MF, Russo P. The role of surgery in
the treatment of adrenal metastasis. Cancer 1998;
82:38994.
15. Russo P, Snyder M, Vickers A, et al. Cytoreductive
neprhectomy and nephrectomy/complete metastasectomy for metastatic renal cancer. The Scientific
World Urology 2007;2:4252.
16. Montie JE, Stewart BH, Straffon RA, et al. The role of
adjuvant nephrectomy in patients with metastatic
17. Walther MM, Yang JC, Pass HI, et al. Cytoreductive
surgery before high dose interleukin-2 based therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 1997;158:16758.
18. Rackley R, Novick A, Klein E, et al. The impact of
adjuvant nephrectomy on multimodality treatment
of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1994;
152:1399403.
19. Sella A, Swanson DA, Ro JY, et al. Surgery following
response to interferon-alpha-based therapy for
residual renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1993;149:1921.
20. Flanigan RC, Salmon SE, Blumenstein BA, et al. Nephrectomy followed by interferon alfa 2-b compared
with interferon alfa-2b alone for metastatic renal cell
carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2001;345:16559.
21. Mickisch GH, von Poppel H, de Prijck L, et al. Radical nephrectomy plus interferonalfa based immunotherapy compared with interferon alfa alone in
metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomized trial.
Lancet 2001;358:96670.
22. Flanigan RC, Mickisch G, Sylvester R, et al. Cytoreductive npherectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer: a combined analysis. J Urol 2004;171:
10716.
23. Bromwich E, Hendry D, Aitchison M. Cytoreductive
nephrectomy: Is it a realistic option in patients with
renal cancer. BJU Int 2002;89:5235.
24. Fossa SD. Interferon in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Semin Oncol 2000;27:18793.
25. Motzer RJ, Mazumdar M, Bacik J, et al. Survival and
prognostic stratification of 670 patients with
advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1999;
17:285967.
26. Motzer RJ, Bacik J, Schwartz LH, et al. Prognostic
factors for survival in previously treated patients
2004;22:45463.
27. Kattan MW, Reuter VE, Motzer RJ, et al. A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma.
J Urol 2001;166:637.
28. Lee CT, Katz J, Fearn PA, et al. Mode of presentation
of renal cell carcinoma provides prognostic information. Urol Oncol 2002;7:13540.
29. Eggener SE, Yossepowitch O, Pettus JA, et al. Renal
cell carcinoma recurrence after nephrectomy for
localized disease. Predicting survival from time of
recurrence. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:310131.
30. Eggener SE, Yossepowitch O, Kudhu S, et al.
Objective (risk stratification) and subjective
(metastasectomy) factors impact prognosis in
patients with recurrent renal cell carcinoma following
nephrectomy. J Urol 2008;180(3):8738.
31. Iliopoulous O, Levy AP, Jiang C, et al. Negative
regulation of hypoxia-inducible genes by the von
685
686
Russo & OBrien

Hippel-Lindau protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1996;93:105959.
32. Wykoff CC, Beasley NJ, Watson PH, et al.
Hypoxia-inducible expression of tumor-associated
carbonic anhydrases. Cancer Res 2000;60:
707583.
33. Beck SD, Patel MI, Snyder ME, et al. Renal cortical
tumors: variable metastatic potential. Ann Surg
Oncol 2004;11:717.
cell carcinoma of nonclear cell histology. J Clin
Oncol 2002;20:237681.
35. Margulis V, Matin SF, Tannir N, et al. Surgical
morbidity associated with administration of targeted
molecular therapies before cytoreductive nephrectomy or resection of locally recurrent renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2008;180:948.
Systemic Therapy
for Metastatic Renal
Cell Carcinoma
Glenn S. Kroog, MD*, Robert J. Motzer, MD
KEYWORDS
Kidney and renal pelvis tumors represented

approximately 3.5% of cancers and 2.3% of the
deaths due to cancer in 2007 in the United States,1
where renal cell cancer (RCC) accounts for an
estimated 85% of all kidney tumors. Therefore, in
2008, approximately 44,000 cases of RCC will be
diagnosed with more than 11,000 RCC-related
deaths in the United States. RCC can be categorized as conventional (clear cell, 70%85% of
cases), papillary (chromophil, 10%15%), chromophobe (5%), collecting duct (<1%), and unclassified (3%5%).2,3 There are also the recently
described Xp11 translocation RCCs, all of which
bear gene fusions involving the TFE3 transcription
factor gene. They account for at least one third of
pediatric tumors and are a rare cause of aggressive RCC in adults.4 Each subtype may have a sarcomatoid component. Since there is no evidence
that sarcomatoid RCC develops de novo, it is not
viewed as a subtype on its own. Instead it is
a high-grade variant of the type from which it
arose. When no antecedent subtype can be identified, sarcomatoid RCCs are categorized as
unclassified RCCs.
At presentation, up to 30% of patients with RCC
have metastatic disease and recurrence develops
in approximately 40% of patients treated for localized disease.5 Hence a large proportion of RCC
patients require systemic therapy. However, renal
cell carcinoma is in general resistant to traditional
cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents and investigators have sought novel approaches to treatment.
These approaches have until recently focused
upon immune modulation. Cytokine therapy with

either interferon or interleukin-2 (IL-2) was the
standard of care for patients with metastatic
RCC and allogeneic stem cell transplantation
showed promise.
Improved understanding of the biology of RCC
led to the study of so-called targeted therapies.
As a result, over the last few years, therapeutic
options have improved dramatically as broadspectrum receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibodies,
and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors have shown impressive antitumor activity or
prolonged survival relative to cytokines. Since
2005, two multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors
(TKIs) and one mTOR inhibitor have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) for the treatment of advanced RCC: sorafenib (FDA approved in December 2005), sunitinib
(FDA approved in January 2006), and temsirolimus
(FDA approved in May 2007). Since each histologic subtype of RCC is associated with distinct
genetic and molecular alterations, the use of these
signal transduction inhibitors in metastatic RCC
highlights the fact that the unique biology associated with specific histologic subtypes of RCC
therapy will likely be associated with different
response rates with current and future agents.
Therapy will probably eventually be tailored to
the biology of the tumor, as is currently being
done for other malignancies, such as breast
cancer. This review summarizes the current state
of systemic therapy for metastatic RCC.
Genitourinary Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
E-mail address: kroogg@mskcc.org (G.S. Kroog).
Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 687701
doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.007
Renal cell cancer Kidney cancer Sunitinib

Sorafenib Temsirolimus Targeted therapy
688
Kroog & Motzer

TUMORIGENESIS OF RENAL CELL CANCER
CYTOTOXIC CHEMOTHERAPY
The improved survival and quality of life for patients with metastatic RCC over the last several
years are direct results of advances in understanding the development of RCC. The genetics
of RCC tumorigenesis has been reviewed elsewhere68 and is briefly summarized here with attention to the consequences for systemic therapy
for RCC.
The von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) syndrome is an
autosomal dominant disease characterized by
the development of tumors in the cerebellum,
spine, retina, inner ear, pancreas, adrenal glands,
and kidneys. The kidney cancer in VHL syndrome
is uniformly clear cell RCC, and affected individuals have hundreds of clear cell RCCs per kidney.
The VHL tumor suppressor gene was identified in
1993. Both sporadic and inherited forms of clear
cell RCC are strongly associated with mutations,
deletions, or hypermethylations in the VHL gene
(VHL), which inactivate the gene. The VHL protein
functions as part of a multiprotein complex involved in targeting proteins for degradation by
marking them with ubiquitin. Major targets that
the VHL complex ubiquitinates are the transcription factors hypoxia-inducible factor 1a (HIF-1a)
and hypoxia-inducible factor 2a (HIF-2a).
Under normal oxygen conditions and with normal
VHL function, HIFs are degraded. When hypoxia
develops or if VHL is inactivated, HIF levels increase and HIF-dependent genes are transcribed
(Fig. 1). This leads to changes in expression of
various proteins and constitutes the cellular response to hypoxia. HIF levels can also be regulated
by growth factor and cell adhesion pathways,
leading to activation of the Ras-Rafmitogenactivated protein kinase pathway and the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT-mTOR pathway.
The HIF-dependent response is characterized by
increased levels of VEGF, epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR), platelet-derived growth factor
(PDGF), glucose transporters (eg, GLUT-1), transforming growth factor-a (TGF-a, ligand for EGFR),
and erythropoietin. In the context of a clear cell
RCC, this results in stimulation of angiogenesis
and tumor cell proliferation. Because VEGF has
a central role during pathologic angiogenesis and
restricted expression in healthy adults, a variety
of therapeutic strategies aimed at blocking
VEGF-induced signal transduction have been
attempted. See Ferrara and colleagues9 for an excellent review of VEGF biology. Other RCC histologies are also associated with specific mutations.
For example, type 1 papillary RCC is characterized
by dysregulation or mutation in the tyrosine kinase
domain of the c-Met oncogene.
Multiple reviews have summarized the poor results

with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapeutic
agents and hormonal therapies in metastatic
RCC.1014 Response rates were usually much
less than 15%. Chemotherapeutic strategies for
RCC were reviewed by Milowsky and Nanus14
5 years ago in Urologic Clinics of North America.
The investigators concluded that single-agent
chemotherapy trials had been disappointing.
They discussed the continued modest enthusiasm
for combination chemotherapy, highlighting gemcitabine- and fluoropyrimidine-based regimens.
However, two recently published trials of gemcitabine and capecitabine showed response rates of
only 11% to 16% with significant toxicity.15,16
Stadler and colleagues16 concluded from their trial
that the activity seen and degree of toxicity would
not support the evaluation of gemcitabine plus
capecitabine in a phase III trial. The combination
of doxorubicin and gemcitabine has shown some
activity in sarcomatoid and rapidly progressing
RCC.17,18 In the study, the investigators collected
the experience of two institutions (outside of a formal clinical trial) in treating patients with sarcomatoid and rapidly progressing RCC and found that,
of 18 patients, 2 had a complete response and
5 had a partial response. A prospective cooperative group study with this regimen in patients
with sarcomatoid features has completed enrollment and is currently being analyzed.
IMMUNOTHERAPY
Relapse of RCC many years after nephrectomy,
prolonged disease stabilization without systemic
treatment, and occasional spontaneous regressions suggested that host immune mechanisms
might control tumor growth. This led to the study
of immunotherapy for RCC.13 Interferon and IL-2
were reported to have antitumor activity in the
1980s and were the only proven therapy for metastatic RCC until recently. Immunotherapy for RCC
has been the subject of a recently updated analysis by Coppin and colleagues19 for the Cochrane
Collaboration. Combined data for a variety of
immunotherapies gave an overall response rate
of 12.4% (8.9% partial response and 3.5% complete response) compared with 2.4% in nonimmunotherapy control arms. High-dose IL-2 is
associated with increased vascular permeability
and requires inpatient monitoring, often in an intensive care unit. A limited number of centers
now offer high-dose IL-2. It has been associated
with a 4% incidence of treatment-related death
and should be offered only to patients with normal
Systemic Therapy for Metastatic RCC
B
angiogenesis
sunitinib
Blood vessel cells
RTKs
RTKs
bevacizumab
VEGF
PDGF
Growth factors
nutrients
VEGF
PDGF
nutrients
RTKs
proliferation
HIF
sunitinib
Cancer cells
temsirolimus HIF
VEGF
PDGF
mTOR
VHL
RTKs
VEGF
PDGF
mTOR
HIF
VHL
HIF-responsive genes
HIF
HIF-responsive genes
VHL
HIF
Fig. 1. The VHL pathway in clear cell cancer of the kidney and inhibition by targeted therapies. Under normoxic
conditions, VHL promotes HIF degradation (box). When VHL mutates (A), HIF-dependent genes, including VEGF
and PDGF, are transcribed and angiogenesis is stimulated. Targeted therapies (B) block various aspects of these
events, leading to antiproliferative and antiangiogenic effects. Sunitinib and temsirolimus are shown as examples
of TKIs and mTOR inhibitors respectively. See text for details. RTKs, receptor tyrosine kinases.
cardiac, renal, and pulmonary function. However,

response was poorly correlated with survival so
that remission rate is not a good surrogate marker
for survival for advanced RCC. High-dose IL-2 did
not give better overall survival compared with lowdose IL-2 or to subcutaneous cytokine therapy,
but may improve survival in the patients with bad
prognostic factors based on subset analysis.
High-dose IL-2 was approved as treatment for
RCC in the United States on the basis of phase II
studies because of durable complete remissions
seen in 5% to 7% of patients.20,21 The results of
several studies indicate that interferon alpha
(IFN-a) is superior to controls with a hazard ratio
for death of 0.74. Doses ranging from 5 to 20
million units (MU) per day have been studied,
although the optimal dose and schedule is not
known. The addition of a variety of enhancers
has failed to improve survival compared with
IFN-a alone. Due to the limited availability of
high-dose IL-2, its toxicity profile, and the survival
associated with interferon, randomized studies of
signaling inhibitors used interferon as the control
arm. In addition, studies on cytokines have proven
that surgery has a role in the treatment of
metastatic RCC. In highly selected patients with

metastases at diagnosis and minimal symptoms,
cytoreductive nephrectomy before IFN-a therapy
improves survival over IFN-a alone.22,23 Therefore,
cytoreductive nephrectomy is a common part of
systemic therapy for metastatic RCC. As a result,
studies with signaling inhibitors (discussed below)
have usually been performed in patients who have
had prior nephrectomy.
ALLOGENEIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION

Other approaches to improve immunotherapy
have been tried. It was hypothesized that graftversus-tumor effects analogous to those seen in
leukemias might occur in RCC. Childs and
colleagues24 performed nonmyeloablative allogeneic peripheral-blood stem cell transplantation in
19 patients with suitable donors. The preparative
regimen consisted of 60 mg/kg cyclophosphamide
on day 7 and day 6 before transplantation, followed
by 25 mg/m2 fludarabine on each of the last 5 days
before transplantation. Three patients (16%) had
complete response and 7 had a partial response
(37%) for an overall response rate of 53%. Two
689
690
Kroog & Motzer

patients (11%) died of transplantation-related toxicity. In addition, consistent with a graft-versustumor effect, regression of metastases occurred
a median of 129 days after transplantation, and often followed the withdrawal of cyclosporine and
the establishment of complete donorT-cell chimerism. These results were scientifically consistent with the initial hypothesis and were clinically
extremely encouraging. A series of trials followed,
including an intergroup trial25 that attempted to
confirm these exciting results. Ueno and Childs26
recently summarized and reviewed the data from
all trials. Most trials were small (725 patients)
and used a variety of conditioning regimens and
graftversushost disease prophylaxis. Response
rates varied from 0% to 57%, and treatment-related mortality ranged from 0% to 40%. In the largest series, reported by Barkholt and colleagues,27
124 patients were treated at 21 European centers
with a variety of regimens. Transplant-related mortality was seen in 16% of patients. Out of 98 evaluable patients, 4 had complete response, 24 had
partial response, and 24 had stable disease.
Therefore, although autologous stem cell transplantation has not been optimized in this disease,
it is clear that a graft-versus-tumor effect can be
evoked against RCC. However, because the development of growth factor signaling inhibitors,
the clinical necessity of this high-risk approach
has lessened. Therefore, the risk/benefit profile of
nonmyeloablative allogeneic peripheral-blood
stem cell transplantation in RCC may relegate
this approach to patients refractory to growth
factor signaling inhibitors. Although allogeneic

stem cell transplantation remains investigational
in RCC, the improved treatments available may
potentially diminish the suitability of patients who
receive transplantation and lessen the chance
of observing an antitumor effect.
TARGETED THERAPIES
VEGF antibodies, broad spectrum TKIs, and mTOR
inhibitors are generally referred to as targeted
therapies. However, most of the clinically useful
TKIs would be better described as multitargeted.
They are small molecules that bind to the ATP binding pocket of a group of evolutionarily related
kinases with varying affinities (Table 1). Some,
such as sorafenib (which also inhibits raf), have
an even broader spectrum of inhibition. The reason
or reasons for the varying efficacy in the clinic with
these agents is not clear. Therefore, although usually rationally designed, their use is therapy for RCC
is somewhat empiric. Targeted therapies have recently been reviewed.2830 Because the treatment
of RCC is in rapid flux, we focus on targeted therapies in detail. Results of major randomized phase III
trials are summarized in Table 2.
Sunitinib (SU11248)
Sunitinib was developed as an oral inhibitor of
VEGF receptor 2 and PDGF receptor b31 although
its spectrum of activity is broad. Sunitinib is primarily metabolized by cytochrome CYP3A4, resulting in formation of a major, pharmacologically
Table 1
Concentration required for 50% inhibition in vitro (IC50) for selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors
Kinase
VEGF receptor 1
VEGF receptor 2
VEGF receptor 3
PDGF receptor a
PDGF receptor b
EGFR
Fibroblast growth factor
receptor 1
Flt-3 and mutants
Stem cell factor receptor
(c-kit)
Ret
Colony stimulating factor 1
receptor/c-fms
Sunitinib
(nmol/L)31,90
Sorafenib
(nmol/L)91
Pazopanib
(nmol/L)92
Vatalanib
(PTK787/ZK 222,584)
(nmol/L)93
980
28
> 20,000
8302900
26
1590
20
57
>10,000
580
10
30
47
71
84
> 20,000
140
77
37
660
580
10300
110
3358
68
> 20,000
74
730
47
2800
146
1400
10.2 vs 5.4
Abbreviation: MSKCC, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

a
Complete response plus partial response.
b
Overall response rate plus stable disease.
649
Bevacizumab 1 interferon
vs interferon45
Setting
1st line
Good/intermediate
Good/intermediate
Good/intermediate
Intermediate/poor
10.9 vs
8.4 vs
7.3
5.5 vs 2.8
11 vs 5
5.5 vs 4.7 vs
3.1
80 vs 55
79 vs 55
32.1 vs
28.1 vs
15.5
77 vs 63
2 vs 0
31 vs 6
8.6 vs
8.1 vs
4.8
31 vs 13
903
750
626
Sorafenib vs placebo38
Sunitinib vs Interferon5
Temsirolimus vs temsirolimus
1 interferon vs interferon55
MSKCC Prognostic
Groups
Overall
Survival (mo)
Median Progression-Free
Survival (mo)
Dz Control
Rate (%)b
Overall Response
Rate (%)a
Number of
Patients
Drug(s)
Table 2
Major positive randomized phase III trials of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma
2nd line
1st line
1st line

active N-desethyl metabolite, SU012662. This
metabolite was shown to be equipotent to the
parent compound in biochemical tyrosine kinase
and cellular proliferation assays, acting toward
VEGF receptors, PDGF receptors, and stem cell
factor receptors. Due to concerns about potential
bone marrow and adrenal toxicity observed in animal models, a 4-week-on, 2-week-off schedule
(rather than continuous administration) was selected for phase I at the request of the health authorities to allow patients to recover. During the
course of the phase I study, pharmacokinetic
analysis revealed that variability in exposure
was not reduced by normalizing for body surface
area, so flat dosing was used.32 There was wide
interpatient variation in plasma sunitinib and
SU012662 levels. Two consecutive open-label,
phase II studies were conducted with sunitinib
starting at 50 mg per day in patients with metastatic RCC and progressive disease while
patients were receiving cytokine-based immunotherapy. In the first trial,33 25 of 63 patients (40%)
achieved partial responses with sunitinib, and 17
of 63 (27%) had stable disease lasting at least
3 months. Although open to all histologic subtypes of RCC, most patients (87%) had clear
cell RCC. Out of the remaining patients, 1 patient
with papillary RCC achieved partial response.
Median time to tumor progression was 8.7
months. A second, 106-patient single-arm trial
was conducted solely in metastatic clear cell
RCC to confirm the antitumor activity and safety
observed in the first phase II trial.34 Of 105 assessable patients, the independently assessed
response rate was 34%, stable disease rate
29%, and median progression-free survival 8.3
months. The most common adverse events experienced by patients in both studies were fatigue
and diarrhea. Additional grade 3 toxicities included nausea, stomatitis, and hypertension.
Grade 4 neutropenia was rare.
A randomized phase III trial compared sunitinib
with interferon alpha-2a (IFNa-2a) in first-line
treatment of metastatic clear cell RCC.5 Seven
hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned
to sunitinib (n 5 375) or IFNa-2a (n 5 375). The
primary end point was progression-free survival.
In a planned preliminary analysis, median progression-free survival, as assessed by third-party
independent review, was 11 months for sunitinib
versus 5 months for IFNa-2a (P < .001). The
response rate by third-party independent review
was 31% for sunitinib versus 6% for IFNa-2a
(P < .001). The toxicity profile was similar to that
reported in second-line studies. Patients in the
sunitinib group reported a significantly better
quality of life than did patients in the IFNa-2a
691
692
Kroog & Motzer

group (P < .001). The results demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival
and objective response rate for sunitinib over interferon in first-line treatment of metastatic RCC.
Based on the results of this interim analysis, the
FDA approved sunitinib, which has become standard therapy for first-line treatment for metastatic
RCC.
An alternative dosing schedule of sunitinib is
currently being studied. In a study of 107 patients
treated with a continuous daily sunitinib with
a starting dose of 37.5 mg per day, patients received either AM or PM doses of sunitinib and could
be dose-escalated or -decreased, depending
upon toxicity. Partial response was seen in 20%
and stable disease in 52% (>3 months in 40%).
Median progression-free survival was 36 weeks.
Few differences were seen between AM and PM
dosing in tolerability or response. Sunitinib administered by continuous dosing was relatively well
tolerated, with only a few patients requiring treatment breaks or dose reduction. A current trial is
comparing this schedule to the standard 4-weekon, 2-week-off schedule (NCT00267748).
Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006)

Sorafenib was designed as an inhibitor of the
Raf-1 protein. Subsequently, sorafenib was found
to inhibit VEGF receptors and PDGF receptors.35
Strumberg and colleagues36 performed a phase I
study of daily sorafenib. Disease stabilization
was observed in a patient with metastatic RCC.
No dose-limiting toxicity was observed at 400
mg by mouth twice daily. However, dose-limiting
toxicity was seen at 800 mg twice daily (grade 3 diarrhea in 2 of 6 patients) and 600 mg twice daily
(dose-limiting skin toxicity in 4 of 14 patients). In
addition, there was great interpatient variability in
serum sorafenib levels and there seemed to be
no difference in mean steady-state serum levels
between these three dose levels. Therefore, the
dose level recommended for phase II trials was
400 mg twice daily.
Because of the expectation for disease stabilization, a large phase II study was designed as
a randomized discontinuation trial, intended to
evaluate tumor growth inhibition rather than tumor
shrinkage.37 All patients enrolled onto the study
initially received 400 mg twice daily sorafenib for
12 weeks. Disease evaluation was conducted,
and patients who had 25% or more tumor shrinkage continued with open-label drug. Patients with
less than 25% decrease or less than 25% increase
in tumor size were randomly assigned to either
continue sorafenib for 12 weeks or receive placebo. Patients who progressed with an increase
of tumor size of 25% or more were considered

as having progressive disease and removed from
study. More than 500 patients with various solid
tumors were treated in this study. Due to activity
detected in patients with RCC, the investigators
amended the trial to focus on RCC and a total of
202 patients with metastatic RCC were treated.
Of the 202 RCC patients, 73 had tumor shrinkage
of more than 25% during the initial 12 weeks of
therapy. Partial response rate by modified World
Health Organization criteria was only 11%. Another 65 patients with stable disease during this
run-in period were randomly assigned at week
12 to therapy with either placebo or continuation
of sorafenib. The median progression-free survival
from random assignment was significantly longer
with sorafenib (24 weeks) compared with placebo
(6 weeks). Adverse effects included skin rash,
hand-foot skin reaction, and fatigue. The study
demonstrated significant disease-stabilizing activity in metastatic RCC and tolerability with chronic
daily therapy.
Based on these results, the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial
(TARGET), a randomized phase III trial comparing
sorafenib (n 5 451) with placebo (n 5 452) was
performed in patients with treatment-refractory
metastatic clear cell RCC.38 Even though treatment-refractory, the patient population had a relatively favorable prognosis with approximately
50% good prognosis and 50% intermediate
prognosis, as determined by the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognosis score.39 A planned interim analysis after 353
events demonstrated that the median duration
of progression-free survival was 5.5 months in
sorafenib patients compared with 2.8 months in
the placebo group (P < .001). Independent review
of the response data at a January 2005 cutoff
demonstrated that 80% of patients were progression-free in the sorafenib arm (2% partial response and 78% stable disease) compared with
55% in the placebo arm (0% partial response
and 55% stable disease). At a May 2005 cutoff,
investigator review showed 11% overall response
rate (1% complete response, 10% partial response) and 74% stable disease in the sorafenib
group compared with 2% overall response rate
(2% partial response) and 53% stable disease in
the placebo group. The most common adverse
effects significantly associated with sorafenib included skin rash (40%), hand-foot skin reaction
(30%), diarrhea (43%), alopecia (27%), pruritus
(19%), and hypertension (17%). These data demonstrated the efficacy of sorafenib in metastatic
RCC, and led to FDA approval for advanced
RCC.

As first-line therapy, sorafenib (400 mg twice
daily) was compared with interferon (9 MU three
times weekly) in a randomized phase II study in patients with metastatic clear cell RCC.40 A unique
feature of the design was a second phase of the
trial in which patients who progressed on sorafenib then received 600 mg twice weekly and patients who progressed on interferon received
sorafenib 400 mg twice weekly. Although some
tumor shrinkage occurred more frequently in the
sorafenib arm (68% vs. 39%), and patients on
sorafenib went longer before a deterioration
in health status, progression-free survival was disappointing in the first part of the study. Progression-free survival was similar in both arms (5.7
months for sorafenib vs. 5.6 months for IFN) and
more patients in the interferon arm continued on
therapy at 1 year. Consistent with other trials,33
plasma VEGF increased and soluble VEGF receptor 2 decreased in the sorafenib group while soluble VEGF receptor 2 increased in the interferon
group. A larger decrease in soluble VEGF receptor
2 on sorafenib correlated with longer progressionfree survival. In the second phase, 60% of the
patients who progressed on 400 mg twice daily
sorafenib dose-escalated to 600 mg twice daily.
Dose escalation was well tolerated, progressionfree survival was 4.1 months, and 46% of patients
experienced stable disease. For patients who
crossed over from interferon to sorafenib, results
were comparable to the TARGET data: 22% responded (2% complete response, 20% partial response) and 54% had stable disease. These data
suggest that sorafenib can be sequentially escalated to 600 mg twice daily and that more patients
may have clinical benefit.
Consistent with the data in the second phase of
the first-line sorafenib study, Amato and colleagues41 presented data from a dose-escalation
phase II trial of sorafenib. In this study, 44 patients with a component of clear cell RCC, some
of whom had progressed on cytokine therapy,
were treated with 400 mg twice daily for 28
days, then 600 mg twice daily for 28 days, then
800 mg twice daily continuously. Dose modification was made for grade 3/4 toxicity. Forty-one
of 44 patients tolerated dose escalation to 600
mg twice daily, and 25 of 41 were able to maintain
a dose of 800 mg twice daily. Results were extremely encouraging with 7 of 44 (16%) having
complete response, 17 of 44 (39%) having partial
response, and 9 of 44 (20%) stable disease. Median time to progression has not yet been
reached and is greater than 8.4 months. If confirmed in subsequent trials, this would lead to
a reevaluation of sorafenib dosing and its role in
metastatic RCC.
Bevacizumab
Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody
agent that binds and neutralizes all the major isoforms of VEGF-A.42 Bevacizumab was initially
investigated in a randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in patients with
clear cell carcinoma of the kidney.43 Bevacizumab
at doses of 3 and 10 mg per kilogram of body
weight or placebo was given every 2 weeks and
crossover from placebo to antibody treatment
was allowed. All patients had either received previous therapy with IL-2 or had a contraindication to
use of IL-2 and almost all had prior nephrectomy.
The primary end points were time to disease progression and response rate. A total of 116 patients
were randomly assigned to the three treatment
groups. At the time of a planned interim analysis,
the median time to progression was significantly increased to 4.8 months in the patients receiving the
10-mg/kg dose of bevacizumab, compared with
2.5 months for placebo. Four partial responses occurred, all in the group treated with bevacizumab at
10 mg/kg, for a partial response rate of 10%. Based
on the significant increase in time to progression,
accrual to the trial was stopped. The lack of an effect on survival was attributed to the crossover design. Most patients had VEGF levels below the
lower limit of detection and there was no significant
association between response and VEGF level.
However, the low sensitivity did not rule out a correlation between VEGF and clinical benefit.
Two randomized phase III studies examined
combinations of bevacizumab with interferon in
patients with predominantly clear cell histology.
A study comparing interferon alpha-2b (IFN-a-2b)
with or without bevacizumab coordinated through
the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB90,206; NCT00072046) has closed to accrual.44
Results of this study are not currently available.
The results of the Avoren trial was recently published and compared bevacizumab (10 mg/kg
every 2 weeks) plus IFN-a-2a (9 MU subcutaneously three times weekly; n 5 327) to placebo plus
IFN-a-2a (control group, n 5 322) in patients with
previously untreated metastatic RCC who had prior
nephrectomy.45 The study did not include a bevacizumab monotherapy arm because, at the time of
trial design, this was considered unethical. The
planned primary end point was overall survival.
Secondary end points included progression-free
survival and safety. An interim analysis of overall
survival was prespecified after 250 deaths. However, while the trial was in progress, new therapies
became available that could have confounded analyses of overall survival data, so the investigators
agreed with regulatory agencies that the
693
694
Kroog & Motzer

preplanned final analysis of progression-free survival would be acceptable for regulatory submission. The protocol was amended to allow the
study to be unblinded at this point. At the time of unblinding, progression had occurred in 230 patients
in the bevacizumab-plus-interferon group and 275
in the control group with 114 deaths in the bevacizumab-plus-interferon group and 137 in the control
group. Median duration of progression-free survival
was significantly longer in the bevacizumabplus
interferon alpha group than it was in the control
group (10.2 months vs. 5.4 months; P 5 .0001).
Overall response rates were 31% for bevacizumab
plus interferon versus 11% for placebo plus interferon. However, there was no independent radiologic assessment included in the study design.
MSKCC prognostic group distribution was similar
to that for the patients studied by Motzer and colleagues,5 and progression-free survival and overall
response rate were similar to sunitinib as a single
agent. Combination therapy was generally well tolerated. In both groups the most commonly reported
grade 3 or worse adverse events were established
interferon-related toxicities (eg, fatigue, asthenia,
and neutropenia). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events in
patients who received bevacizumab included gastrointestinal perforations (1%) and thromboembolic
events (3%). Patients receiving bevacizumab also
discontinued treatment due to hypertension (2%)
and proteinuria (5%). Although 33% of patients on
bevacizumab suffered bleeding of any grade, only
2 patients (<1%) died from bleeding complications.
Since a bevacizumab monotherapy arm was not
included in these studies, they do not justify the
use of bevacizumab alone in first-line therapy.
Whether combination with interferon will be the
preferred regimen long term, is an issue to be addressed. The Avoren trial cannot be directly compared with the study by Yang and colleagues43
because in the placebo-controlled bevacizumab
study almost all of the patients had progressed
on prior IL-2 therapy whereas the Avoren trial required patients to have not had prior systemic
therapy for metastatic RCC.
Other bevacizumab-containing combinations
have also been tried recently. Based on encouraging preclinical and phase I and II data implicating
EGFR signaling in the pathogenesis of RCC,46
a randomized phase II trial of bevacizumab with
and without the EGFR TKI erlotinib has been completed in patients with a nephrectomy who had not
received prior systemic therapy.47 However, there
was no additional clinical benefit to the addition of
erlotinib to bevacizumab. Response rates of about
14%, stable disease rates of 68%, and progression-free survival of 9 to 10 months were seen in
both arms.
Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibitors:

Temsirolimus (CCI-779) and Everolimus
(RAD001)
The mTOR is an enzyme involved in regulating cellular responses to nutrients and growth factors
and is one of the main regulators of cell growth
and proliferation.4850 The signaling pathways
that activate mTOR are altered in many human
cancers. mTOR is a large multidomain protein
that complexes with other proteins and belongs
to a group of kinases that includes phosphatidylinositol 3-kinases (PI3Ks). The complexes in which
mTOR participates are termed mTOR complex
1 (mTORC1) and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2).
Rapamycin forms a complex with the 12-kDa
FK506 binding protein (FKBP12), and this complex
then binds to and inhibits mTORC1. Therefore, rapamycin and its analogs exert their effects by inhibiting TORC1 signaling. The best-understood
roles of mTOR in mammalian cells are related to
the control of mRNA translation. However, HIF1a expression and function can be regulated by
mTOR, and loss of VHL sensitizes cells to temsirolimus via regulation of HIF-1a.51,52
Temsirolimus (CCI-779) has been the most thoroughly studied mTOR inhibitor. In a phase II trial,
111 patients with advanced (primarily MSKCC intermediate and poor risk), heavily pretreated,
refractory RCC were randomized to 25, 75, or
250 mg of temsirolimus.53 Only 7% of patients
achieved an objective response. There were no
significant differences in outcome noted between
dose levels. The median time to progression was
5.8 months, with a median survival for the entire
population of 15.0 months.
Temsirolimus was combined with IFNa-2b in
a phase I/II clinical trial of 71 metastatic RCC patients. The trial had many patients with intermediate or poor prognosis (21% favorable, 55%
intermediate, and 24% poor prognosis) and 39
(55%) of patients had received prior systemic therapy, 36 (51%) of whom had received IL-2.
Partial responses were observed in 11% of all
patients, with a median time to progression of
9.1 months.54 In view of the patient population,
the median progression-free survival in this trial
was encouraging, and led to the inclusion of combination therapy as an arm in a randomized phase
III trial in patients with poor-risk features. Hudes
and colleagues55 compared temsirolimus (25 mg)
alone versus temsirolimus (15 mg) plus IFNa-2a
versus IFNa-2a alone as first-line treatment.
Poor-risk eligibility for the trial was based on modified MSKCC criteria (approximately three fourths
of the patients in each arm met standard MSKCC
poor-risk criteria). Six hundred twenty-six patients

were randomly assigned. Although objective response rates were low (8.6% vs. 8.1% vs. 4.8%)
and differences among the three arms were not
statistically significant, the median survival for
temsirolimus was 10.9 months compared with
8.4 months with temsirolimus plus interferon and
7.3 months with interferon. There was a significant
improvement in survival for temsirolimus compared with interferon (P 5 .0069; hazard ratio of
0.73 in favor of temsirolimus). Although the combination of temsirolimus and IFNa-2a provided no
additional benefit, temsirolimus, compared with
IFNa-2a, significantly increases the survival and
quality-adjusted survival56 of first-line, poor-risk
advanced RCC patients. Temsirolimus was FDA
approved based on the results of this study. Patients with all histologies of RCC were included in
the trial and nonclear cell histologies had particularly good outcomes relative to interferon. However, of the 18% of patients without clear cell
histology in the study, approximately 12% had indeterminate histology and only 6% had defined
nonclear cell histology.57 Therefore, the utility of
temsirolimus in nonclear cell histologies is not
known for certain.
Further studies are also needed to define the
role of temsirolimus in first-line therapy for patients
with a more favorable prognosis (intermediate and
poor risk) and as second line after sunitinib therapy. The low response rates seen currently make
it a less appealing choice as a single agent for patients who can tolerate sunitinib or who have
symptoms that need palliation. As for temsirolimus
as second-line therapy, a study currently enrolling
patients (NCT00474786) is randomizing patients
who progressed on sunitinib to sorafenib or temsirolimus. In addition, several studies have begun
to look at temsirolimus in combination with other
targeted therapies (see section on combination
therapy below).
Everolimus (RAD001) is an orally active mTOR
inhibitor with a similar mechanism of action to temsirolimus. It has been studied alone and in combination with TKIs. A phase II trial of RAD001 as
a single agent has been presented at the American
Society of Clinical Oncology.58 Out of 37 evaluable
patients, 12 (32%) had partial responses and 19
(51%) were stable for 3 or more months. Treatment-related adverse events included mucositis,
skin rash, pneumonitis, hypophosphatemia,
hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and elevated liver function tests. A multicenter phase III
double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial
comparing RAD001 plus best supportive care to
best supportive care alone has completed enrollment (NCT00410124). Phase I and II doublet
combination studies with bevacizumab, sunitinib,

or vatalanib59 are in progress.
COMBINATION THERAPY
The available targeted and multitargeted therapies
represent a significant advance in the treatment of
RCC. However, none are associated with significant rates of long-term disease-free survival. Intensive research has begun over the last several
years to determine if combinations of targeted
therapies or targeted therapies plus immunomodulatory therapies are superior to sequential therapy with these agents.
Attempts to combine sunitinib with other agents
have been met with significant toxicity. A trial of
temsirolimus plus sunitinib was stopped due to
dose-limiting toxicity observed in two of three patients in the first cohort of a dose-finding study using temsirolimus 15 mg weekly and sunitinib 25 mg
daily.60 A phase I trial of sunitinib plus bevacizumab
has been performed. Hypertension was reported
to be the most common adverse event and grade
4 hemorrhage was observed in 2 out of 20 patients.61 Finally, a dose-finding study has been
completed combining sunitinib with interferon.62
The study enrolled 25 patients. Sunitinib 37.5 mg
per day (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off) and interferon 3
MU three times weekly was tolerated, although all
patients on the study experienced grade 3 adverse
events. Of the 6 patients at sunitinib 37.5 mg per
day and interferon 3 MU three times weekly, grade
3 adverse events included neutropenia, dyspnea,
hypertension, swelling face, and syncope. One patient at this dose level experienced a serious adverse event. For the entire group, 12% had partial
response and 80% stable disease. The investigators concluded that the toxicity of this regimen
does not justify continued study.
Sorafenib-based combinations have recently
been reviewed.63 Two phase II trials of sorafenib
plus interferon were published in 2007. Both used
sorafenib 400 mg twice daily plus IFN-a-2b 10
MU subcutaneously three times weekly and studied patients with similar prognosis to those treated
by Motzer and colleagues in the randomized study
of sunitinib versus interferon. Ryan and colleagues64 examined patients who had not received
prior systemic therapy and found responses in 12 of
62 patients (19%) and stable disease in 31 of 62 patients (50%). Median progression-free survival was
7 months. Toxicity was more severe than with either
agent alone. Fatigue (29%) and diarrhea (16%)
were the most common grade 3 toxicities. In
a smaller trial, Gollob and colleagues65 found
a 33% overall response rate (5% complete response and 28% partial response) and 45% stable
695
696
Kroog & Motzer

disease. Median progression-free survival was 10
months. Grade 3/4 toxicities included hypophosphatemia (37%), neutropenia (25%), fatigue
(13%), and rash (13%). In both trials, toxicity and response rates were higher than what has been seen
with either agent alone.
Two phase I studies of sorafenib plus bevacizumab have been completed.6668 A dose of sorafenib 200 mg twice daily and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg
every other week appeared tolerable in a study
open to multiple tumor types.66,67 The other study
was limited to patients with metastatic RCC.68
Sorafenib 200 mg every day and bevacizumab 5
mg/kg every other week appeared tolerable. The
investigators found a very impressive response
rate with 21 of 46 evaluable patients (46%) having
a partial response as defined by the Response
Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. In addition,
23 patients had stable disease. Forty-one of 46
(89%) patients experienced some tumor shrinkage
ranging from 5% to 80% from baseline.
A phase I study of sorafenib plus temsirolimus69
determined that the combination of sorafenib
200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus 25 mg intravenous once per week appears tolerable. Combination therapy was limited by mucocutaneous
and hematologic toxicity.
A phase I study of temsirolimus and bevacizumab70 determined that the recommended phase
II doses are temsirolimus 25 mg/wk and bevacizumab 10 mg every other week. A very high response rate was seen with 8 partial responses, 3
with stable disease, and only 1 progressive disease out of 12 evaluable patients. Therapy was
generally well tolerated with grade 3 anorexia,
nausea, mucositis, and hemorrhage being seen
in 2 patients each.
Based on some of the phase I and II data described above, the BeST trial (NCT00378703) has
begun. It is a phase II trial of randomizing a total
of 360 patients to one of four arms: bevacizumab
10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; bevacizumab 10 mg/kg
plus temsirolimus 25 mg weekly; bevacizumab
5 mg/kg plus sorafenib 200 mg twice a day on
days 1 through 5, 8 through 12, 15 through 19,
and 22 through 26; or temsirolimus 25 mg per
week plus sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. It opened
in the fall of 2007. The trial includes a bevacizumab-alone arm and several promising combinations. However, it does not include an arm with
sunitinib alone.
SEQUENCING OF AGENTS
Sunitinib/Sorafenib Sequencing
In two small series examining sequencing of sunitinib and sorafenib, some patients who progressed
on sorafenib had partial response from sunitinib

and vice versa.71,72 In addition, some patients for
whom their best response was progressive disease had a partial response or stable disease
when sunitinib followed sorafenib. Therefore, the
molecular targets and therapeutic efficacy of these
agents are different enough that patients are not
necessarily cross-resistant.
Bevacizumab/Sorafenib or Sunitinib
In an expanded access program for sorafenib, the
subset of patients who had received prior bevacizumab was compared with the entire population.73
Partial response rate (3%), stable disease rate
(78%), and toxicity were similar to those for the entire population. Therefore prior bevacizumab treatment does not make patients less likely to have
stable disease in response to sorafenib. In addition, responses are seen to sunitinib after progression on bevacizumab. A phase II trial of 61 patients
reported 23% partial response and 57% stable
disease in patients treated with sunitinib who had
prior bevacizumab.74
Sorafenib/Bevacizumab or Tyrosine
Kinase Inhibitor
Similarly, small series suggest that prior sorafenib
does not preclude partial response or stable disease in patients subsequently treated with bevacizumab, sunitinib, or axitinib.75,76
ADDITIONAL AND NOVEL AGENTS

Several studies have recently been presented or
published evaluating additional or novel agents in
metastatic RCC. Many of these drugs target HIFdependent aberrant signaling in the same way
that currently approved agents do. Several are
small-molecule, multitargeted TKIs, with unique
spectra of kinase inhibition compared with sunitinib and sorafenib. Like sunitinib and sorafenib, pazopanib (GW786034) has high affinity for a variety
of receptor tyrosine kinases (see Table 1). A 225patient randomized discontinuation study of pazopanib has been presented in abstract form and
shows response and stable disease rates similar
to those for sunitinib (27% partial response and
46% stable disease by independent review).77
Treatment was generally well tolerated. Less
than 30% of patients required dose reduction or
interruption. Six percent of patients experiencing
grade 4 toxicity and 1% grade 5. The spectrum
of toxicity was similar to that for sunitinib with diarrhea, hypertension, nausea, and fatigue being
most common.77 A phase III placebo-controlled

study (NCT00334282) has completed enrollment
and results are pending.
Axitinib (AG-013,736) is an oral potent inhibitor
of VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3 and PDGF receptors. It was studied in a recently published phase
II study of 52 patients with cytokine-refractory
RCC.78 All patients except one had clear cell
RCC. The overall response rate was 44% and stable disease was seen in an additional 44% of patients. The median time to progression was 15.7
months and the group overall had a similar percentage with MSKCC good risk features as in the
randomized phase III trial of sunitinib versus interferon with a similar disease-control rate. Further
studies are continuing.
Preclinical data has implicated TGFa/EGFR signaling in the pathogenesis of RCC.79 However, in
contrast to the results using inhibitors of VEGF
and PDGF signaling, there is no published evidence that targeting EGFR signaling alone or in
combination with other agents is therapeutic in
RCC. Two studies found no evidence of singleagent activity with gefitinib in RCC80,81 and erlotinib did not add to the effect of bevacizumab47 or
sunitinib.82
Several antibodies targeting cell surface proteins selectively expressed in RCC are in various
stages of development. The G250 antigen (carbonic anhydrase IX [CAIX]) is expressed with fairly
high specificity on clear cell RCC. Expression is
dependent upon hypoxia-related molecules, including HIFa. After no success with radiolabeled
mouse monoclonal G250 in the late 1990s,83 several phase I and II studies of cG250, a chimeric
(humanized) CAIX antibody have been performed
with or without low-dose IL-2 (to improve the immune response). Although the antibody targeted
very well to tumor masses in all patients when examined, and occasional patients had a complete
response in early studies,84,85 cG250 had little or
no activity in a phase II study as a single agent or
in combination with low-dose IL-2.84,86,87 It appears that tumor targeting alone is not sufficient
for significant antitumor activity of this humanized
clear cell RCC antibody. Other antibodies are in
development. For example, volociximab, an a5b1
integrin antibody, showed stable disease in 80%
of patients (including one partial response) in
a phase II trial.88
NON^CLEAR CELL HISTOLOGIES

Much less is known about the optimal treatment
of nonclear cell RCC. Trials of specific agents
(such as c-Met inhibitors) targeting the unique
molecular profile of nonclear cell histologies are
beginning. As noted above, due to the distribution
of patients and the trial design, most trials evaluating currently approved targeted therapies have
been limited to or heavily biased toward clear
cell RCC. Even the phase III study of temsirolimus
included very few patients with documented non
clear cell histology. Experience is just being
obtained in nonclear cell histologies. For example, a recently published data set89 reported
patients with papillary or chromophobe RCC
treated with sunitinib or sorafenib as part of extended access programs at five cancer centers.
Out of 41 patients with papillary RCC, 13 received
sunitinib and 28 sorafenib. Two partial responses
were seen, both in the sunitinib group, and progression-free survival was 11.9 months in sunitinib-treated patients versus 5.1 months in
sorafenib-treated patients (P < .001). Out of 12
chromophobe RCC patients, 7 were treated with
sunitinib, and 5 with sorafenib. Two patients
treated with sorafenib and 1 patient treated with
sunitinib achieved a partial response, and stable
disease was achieved in the other patients. Sorafenib-treated patients tended to have a prolonged
median progression-free survival time (27.5
months). These data are preliminary and suggest
subtype-specific responses to different agents.
However, they are limited by small numbers of
patients and the absence of randomization. Further studies are ongoing.
SUMMARY
Until recently, only interferon and IL-2 were of
proven efficacy in the treatment of metastatic
RCC. Improved understanding of the biology of
RCC led to the development, study, and approval
by the FDA of sunitinib, sorafenib, and temsirolimus for treatment of metastatic RCC. Both sunitinib and temsirolimus are proven to be superior to
interferon. In addition, the combination of bevacizumab and interferon has also shown superiority
to interferon alone. However, none of the available
targeted therapies are associated with significant
rates of long-term disease-free survival. Clinical
research is ongoing to answer many questions
including:
What is the optimal sequence of available
agents?
Do combinations of targeted therapies provide additional clinical benefit over sequential treatment with single agents?
What new small molecules and antibodies are
effective against kidney cancer?
What treatments are best for nonclear cell
histologies?
697
698
Kroog & Motzer

REFERENCES
2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57(1):4366.
2. Storkel S, Eble JN, Adlakha K, et al. Classification of
renal cell carcinoma: workgroup No. 1. Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) and the American
Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). Cancer 1997;
80(5):9879.
3. Zisman A, Chao DH, Pantuck AJ, et al. Unclassified
renal cell carcinoma: clinical features and prognostic impact of a new histological subtype. J Urol
2002;168(3):9505.
4. Argani P, Olgac S, Tickoo SK, et al. Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma in adults: expanded clinical, pathologic, and genetic spectrum. Am J Surg
Pathol 2007;31(8):114960.
versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356(2):11524.
6. Linehan WM, Vasselli J, Srinivasan R, et al. Genetic
basis of cancer of the kidney: disease-specific approaches to therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10(18):
6282S9S.
7. Patel PH, Chaganti RS, Motzer RJ. Targeted therapy
for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer
2006;94(5):6149.
8. Linehan WM, Pinto PA, Srinivasan R, et al. Identification of the genes for kidney cancer: opportunity for
disease-specific targeted therapeutics. Clin Cancer
Res 2007;13(2 Pt 2):671s9s.
9. Ferrara N, Gerber HP, LeCouter J. The biology of
VEGF and its receptors. Nat Med 2003;9(6):66976.
10. Yagoda A, Abi-Rached B, Petrylak D. Chemotherapy for advanced renal-cell carcinoma: 1983
1993. Semin Oncol 1995;22(1):4260.
11. Yagoda A, Petrylak D, Thompson S. Cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Urol
Clin North Am 1993;20(2):30321.
12. Hartmann JT, Bokemeyer C. Chemotherapy for renal
cell carcinoma. Anticancer Res 1999;19(2C):15413.
13. Motzer RJ, Bander NH, Nanus DM. Renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1996;335(12):86575.
14. Milowsky MI, Nanus DM. Chemotherapeutic strategies for renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am
2003;30(3):6019, x.
15. Waters JS, Moss C, Pyle L, et al. Phase II clinical trial
of capecitabine and gemcitabine chemotherapy
in patients with metastatic renal carcinoma. Br J
Cancer 2004;91(10):17638.
16. Stadler WM, Halabi S, Rini B, et al. A phase II study
of gemcitabine and capecitabine in metastatic renal
cancer: a report of Cancer and Leukemia Group B
protocol 90008. Cancer 2006;107(6):12739.
17. Nanus DM, Garino A, Milowsky MI, et al. Active chemotherapy for sarcomatoid and rapidly progressing
renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101(7):154551.
18. Milowsky MI, Rosmarin A, Tickoo SK, et al. Active

chemotherapy for collecting duct carcinoma of the
kidney: a case report and review of the literature.
Cancer 2002;94(1):1116.
19. Coppin C, Porzsolt F, Awa A, et al. Immunotherapy
for advanced renal cell cancer. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev 2005;1:CD001425.
20. McDermott DF, Regan MM, Clark JI, et al. Randomized phase III trial of high-dose interleukin-2 versus
subcutaneous interleukin-2 and interferon in patients
2005;23(1):13341.
21. Yang JC, Sherry RM, Steinberg SM, et al. Randomized study of high-dose and low-dose interleukin-2
in patients with metastatic renal cancer. J Clin Oncol
2003;21(16):312732.
22. Flanigan RC, Salmon SE, Blumenstein BA, et al. Nephrectomy followed by interferon alfa-2b compared
with interferon alfa-2b alone for metastatic renalcell cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;345(23):16559.
23. Mickisch GH, Garin A, van Poppel H, et al. Radical
nephrectomy plus interferon-alfabased immunotherapy compared with interferon alfa alone in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised trial.
Lancet 2001;358(9286):96670.
24. Childs R, Chernoff A, Contentin N, et al. Regression
of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma after nonmyeloablative allogeneic peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation. N Engl J Med 2000;343(11):7508.
25. Rini BI, Halabi S, Barrier R, et al. Adoptive immunotherapy by allogeneic stem cell transplantation for
metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a CALGB intergroup phase II study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
2006;12(7):77885.
26. Ueno NT, Childs RW. Whats past is prologue: lessons learned and the need for further development
of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for renal cell carcinoma. Biol Blood Marrow
Transplant 2007;13(1):313.
27. Barkholt L, Bregni M, Remberger M, et al. Allogeneic
haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for metastatic renal carcinoma in Europe. Ann Oncol 2006;
17(7):113440.
28. Motzer RJ, Bukowski RM. Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;
24(35):56018.
29. Mancuso A, Sternberg CN. New treatment approaches in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr
Opin Urol 2006;16(5):33741.
30. Vogelzang NJ, Sternberg CN. Signal-transduction
inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2007;
99(5 Pt B):128995.
31. Sun L, Liang C, Shirazian S, et al. Discovery of
5-[5-fluoro-2-oxo-1,2dihydroindol-(3Z)-ylidenemethyl]-2,4- dimethyl-1H-pyrrole-3-carboxylic acid
(2-diethylaminoethyl)amide, a novel tyrosine kinase
inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial and
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
platelet-derived growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase. J Med Chem 2003;46(7):11169.

Faivre S, Delbaldo C, Vera K, et al. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel
oral multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients
with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(1):2535.
Motzer RJ, Michaelson MD, Redman BG, et al.
Activity of SU11248, a multitargeted inhibitor of
vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and
platelet-derived growth factor receptor, in patients
2006;24(1):1624.
Motzer RJ, Rini BI, Bukowski RM, et al. Sunitinib in
patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
JAMA 2006;295(21):251624.
Flaherty KT. Sorafenib in renal cell carcinoma. Clin
Cancer Res 2007;13(2):747s52s.
Strumberg D, Richly H, Hilger RA, et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of the novel raf
kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor BAY 43-9006 in patients with advanced
refractory solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(5):
96572.
Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of
sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(16):250512.
Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib in
advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl
J Med 2007;356(2):12534.
Motzer RJ, Mazumdar M, Bacik J, et al. Survival and
prognostic stratification of 670 patients with
17(8):253040.
Szczylik C, Demkow T, Staehler M, et al. Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with sorafenib
versus interferon in patients with advanced renal cell
carcinoma: final results. J Clin Oncol (Meeting
Abstracts) 2007;25(18 Suppl):5025.
Amato RJ, Harris P, Dalton M, et al. A phase II trial of
intra-patient dose-escalated sorafenib in patients
(pts) with metastatic renal cell cancer (MRCC).
J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18
Suppl):5026.
Presta LG, Chen H, OConnor SJ, et al. Humanization of an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor
monoclonal antibody for the therapy of solid tumors
and other disorders. Cancer Res 1997;57(20):
45939.
Yang JC, Haworth LL, Sherry RM, et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal
cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349(5):42734.
Rini BI, Halabi S, Taylor J, et al. Cancer and Leukemia Group B 90206: a randomized phase III trial
of interferon-alpha or interferon-alpha plus
anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
(bevacizumab) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Clin Cancer Res 2004;10(8):25846.
Escudier B, Pluzanska A, Koralewski P, et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of
metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial. Lancet 2007;370(9605):
210311.
Hainsworth JD, Sosman JA, Spigel DR, et al. Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib. J Clin Oncol
2005;23(31):788996.
Bukowski RM, Kabbinavar FF, Figlin RA, et al. Randomized phase II study of erlotinib combined with
bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone
in metastatic renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;
25(29):453641.
Averous J, Proud CG. When translation meets transformation: the mTOR story. Oncogene 2006;25(48):
642335.
Easton JB, Houghton PJ. mTOR and cancer therapy.
Oncogene 2006;25(48):643646.
Wullschleger S, Loewith R, Hall MN. TOR signaling
in growth and metabolism. Cell 2006;124(3):47184.
Hudson C, Liu M, Chiang G, et al. Regulation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha expression and function
by the mammalian target of rapamycin. Mol Cell Biol
2002;22(20):700414.
Thomas GV, Tran C, Mellinghoff IK, et al. Hypoxiainducible factor determines sensitivity to inhibitors
of mTOR in kidney cancer. Nat Med 2006;12(1):
1227.
Atkins MB, Hidalgo M, Stadler WM, et al. Randomized phase II study of multiple dose levels of CCI779, a novel mammalian target of rapamycin kinase
inhibitor, in patients with advanced refractory renal
cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(5):90918.
Motzer RJ, Hudes GR, Curti BD, et al. Phase I/II trial
of temsirolimus combined with interferon alfa for
25(25):395864.
Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renalcell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356(22):
227181.
Parasuraman S, Hudes G, Levy D, et al. Comparison
of quality-adjusted survival in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving first-line treatment with temsirolimus (TEMSR) or interferon-a (IFN)
or the combination of IFN1TEMSR. J Clin Oncol
(Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18S) [abstract #5049].
Dutcher JP, Szczylik C, Tannir N, et al. Correlation of
survival with tumor histology, age, and prognostic
risk group for previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (adv RCC) receiving
temsirolimus (TEMSR) or interferon-alpha (IFN).
J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18S)
[abstract #5033].
699
700
Kroog & Motzer

58. Jac J, Giessinger S, Khan M, et al. A phase II trial of
RAD001 in patients (Pts) with metastatic renal cell
carcinoma (MRCC). J Clin Oncol (Meeting
Abstracts) 2007;25(18S) [abstract #5107].
59. Speca JC, Mears AL, Creel PA, et al. Phase I study
of PTK787/ZK222584 (PTK/ZK) and RAD001 for patients with advanced solid tumors and dose expansion in renal cell carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol
(Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18S) [abstract # 5039].
60. Torisel prescribing information, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.
61. Feldman DR, Kondagunta GV, Ronnen EA, et al.
Phase I trial of bevacizumab plus sunitinib in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma
(mRCC). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;
25(18 Suppl):5099.
62. Kondagunta GV, Hudes GR, Figlin R, et al. Sunitinib
malate (SU) plus interferon (IFN) in first line metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC): results of a dosefinding study. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts)
2007;25(18S) [abstract #5101].
63. Takimoto CH, Awada A. Safety and anti-tumor activity of sorafenib (Nexavar((R))) in combination with
other anti-cancer agents: a review of clinical trials.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2008;61(4):53548.
64. Ryan CW, Goldman BH, Lara PN Jr, et al. Sorafenib
with interferon alfa-2b as first-line treatment of advanced renal carcinoma: a phase II study of the
Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2007;
25(22):3296301.
65. Gollob JA, Rathmell WK, Richmond TM, et al. Phase
II trial of sorafenib plus interferon alfa-2b as first-or
second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal
cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(22):328895.
66. Azad NS, Posadas EM, Kwitkowski VE, et al. Increased efficacy and toxicity with combination antiVEGF therapy using sorafenib and bevacizumab.
J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2006;25(18S
(June 20 Supplement)):3004.
67. Posadas E, Ksitkowski V, Liel M. Clinical synergism
from combinatorial VEGF signal transduction inhibition in patients with advanced solid tumors: early
results from a phase I study of sorafenib (BAY 439006) and bevacizumab. Eur J Cancer Suppl
2005;3(2):419 [abstract #1450]
68. Puzanov I, Flaherty K, Atkins M. Final results of
a phase I trial of sorafenib and bevacizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC).
American Association for Cancer Research: molecular targets and cancer therapeutics 2007; October
226, 2007. San Francisco (CA) 2007 [meeting
abstract: A19].
69. Patnaik A, Ricart A, Cooper J, et al. A phase I,
pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of
sorafenib (S), a multi-targeted kinase inhibitor in
combination with temsirolimus (T), an mTOR inhibitor in patients with advanced solid malignancies.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18S) [abstract #3512].

Merchan JR, Liu G, Fitch T, et al. Phase I/II trial of
CCI-779 and bevacizumab in stage IV renal cell
carcinoma: phase I safety and activity results.
Suppl):5034.
Dham A, Dudek AZ. Sequential therapy with sorafenib
and sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol
(Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18S) [abstract #5106].
Sablin M, Bouaita L, Balleyguier C, et al. Sequential
use of sorafenib and sunitinib in renal cancer:
retrospective analysis in 90 patients. J Clin
Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18S) [abstract
#5038].
Drabkin HA, Figlin RA, Stadler WM, et al. The Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (ARCCS)
expanded access trial: safety and efficacy in
patients (pts) with prior bevacizumab (BEV) treatment. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;
25(18S) [abstract #5041].
George DJ, Michaelson MD, Rosenberg JE, et al.
Phase II trial of sunitinib in bevacizumab-refractory
metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): updated
results and analysis of circulating biomarkers.
Suppl):5035.
Hajdenberg J, Oberoi S, Cohen N, et al. Evaluation
of VEGF targeted therapy efficacy in mRCC after
sorafenib failure or intolerance. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18S) [abstract # 15517].
Rini BI, Wilding GT, Hudes G, et al. Axitinib (AG013736; AG) in patients (pts) with metastatic renal
cell cancer (RCC) refractory to sorafenib. J Clin
Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18S (June 20
Supplement)):5032.
Hutson TE, Davis ID, Machiels JP, et al. Pazopanib
(GW786034) is active in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC): interim results of a phase II randomized discontinuation trial (RDT). J Clin Oncol
(Meeting Abstracts) 2007;25(18 Suppl):5031.
Rixe O, Bukowski RM, Michaelson MD, et al. Axitinib
treatment in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal-cell cancer: a phase II study. Lancet
Oncol 2007;8(11):97584.
de Paulsen N, Brychzy A, Fournier MC, et al. Role of
transforming growth factor-alpha in von Hippel-Lindau (VHL)-/- clear cell renal carcinoma cell proliferation: a possible mechanism coupling VHL tumor
suppressor inactivation and tumorigenesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2001;98(4):138792.
Drucker B, Bacik J, Ginsberg M, et al. Phase II trial
of ZD1839 (IRESSA) in patients with advanced renal
cell carcinoma. Invest New Drugs 2003;21(3):3415.
Dawson NA, Guo C, Zak R, et al. A phase II trial of
gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839) in stage IV and recurrent
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10(23):

78129.
Patel PH, Kondagunta GV, Redman BG, et al. Phase
I/II study of sunitinib malate in combination with gefitinib in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts)
2007;25(18 Suppl):5097.
Divgi CR, Bander NH, Scott AM, et al. Phase I/II radioimmunotherapy trial with iodine-131labeled
monoclonal antibody G250 in metastatic renal cell
carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4(11):272939.
Davis I, Wiseman G, Lee F, et al. A phase I multiple
dose, dose escalation study of cG250 monoclonal
antibody in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Immun 2007;7:13.
Varga Z, de Mulder P, Kruit W, et al. A prospective
open-label single-arm phase II study of chimeric
monoclonal antibody cG250 in advanced renal cell
carcinoma patients. Folia Biol 2003;49(2):747.
Davis I, Liu Z, Saunders W, et al. A pilot study of
monoclonal antibody cG250 and low dose subcutaneous IL-2 in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Immun 2007;7:14.
Bleumer I, Oosterwijk E, Oosterwijk-Wakka JC, et al.
A clinical trial with chimeric monoclonal antibody
WX-G250 and low dose interleukin-2 pulsing
scheme for advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Urol
2006;175(1):5762.
Yazji S, Bukowski R, Kondagunta V, et al. Final results
from phase II study of volociximab, an
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
{alpha}5{beta}1 anti-integrin antibody, in refractory

or relapsed metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma
(mCCRCC). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2007;
25(18 Suppl):5094.
Choueiri TK, Plantade A, Elson P, et al. Efficacy of
sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic papillary and
chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol
2008;26(1):12731.
Mendel DB, Laird AD, Xin X, et al. In vivo antitumor
activity of SU11248, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor
targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and
platelet-derived growth factor receptors: determination of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9(1):32737.
Wilhelm S, Carter C, Lynch M, et al. Discovery and
development of sorafenib: a multikinase inhibitor
for treating cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006;
5(10):83544.
Kumar R, Knick VB, Rudolph SK, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic correlation from mouse
to human with pazopanib, a multikinase angiogenesis inhibitor with potent antitumor and antiangiogenic activity. Mol Cancer Ther 2007;6(7):
201221.
Wood JM, Bold G, Buchdunger E, et al. PTK787/ZK
222584, a novel and potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, impairs vascular endothelial growth factorinduced
responses and tumor growth after oral administration. Cancer research 2000;60(8):217889.
701

Urologic Clinics of North America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urologic Clinics of North America

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urologic Clinics of North America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How has our understanding of renal tumors changed over time?

How has our understanding of renal tumors changed over time?

What factors have led to changes in the management of renal tumors?

What factors have led to changes in the management of renal tumors?

Contemporary Understanding and Management of Renal Cortical Tumors

Paul Russo, MD, FACS

In 2008 there will be an estimated 54,390 new

Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) xiiixvii

a benign lesion, such as angiomyolipoma, oncocytoma, metanephric adenoma, or hemorrhagic

open partial nephrectomy may limit its widespread

decreasing the morbidity and mortality of renal

Urol Clin N Am 35 (2008) xix

Paul Russo, MD, FACS

I dedicate this issue of the Urologic Clinics of

causing death; he was also the first to contemplate

 Renal tumors  Surgery  History

Fig. 1. Gustav Simon, (18241876), performed first

EARLY RENAL SURGERY

on the opposite kidney; transperitoneal operations

Surgical Management of Renal Tumors

Fig. 2. Vinsenz Czerny, (18421915), performed first

extensive hemorrhage at operation, delayed

In 1903, Gregoire17 reported removing kidney

MODERN RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY

the draining lymphatic field. Robson27 performed

MODERN PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY

Surgical Management of Renal Tumors

than 100 patients, showing a rare local recurrence

Fig. 3. Laparoscopic nephrectomy team at Washington

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

2. Czerny V. Reported by Herczel E: Uber Nierenexsirpation. Beitr. Z. Klinik. Chir. 1890;6:485.

Surgical Management of Renal Tumors

prognostic evaluation. Therefore, the challenges

GRADING AND STAGING OF RENAL TUMORS

Tickoo & Gopalan

included in the AJCC staging system in 2002. In

CLEAR CELL (CONVENTIONAL) RCC

Clear cell RCC comprises approximately 60% to

were made in 2002. While it cannot claim to be

Pathologic Features of Renal Cortical Tumors

Tickoo & Gopalan

TRANSLOCATION ASSOCIATED RCC

separated by incomplete fibrovascular septations.

Oncocytomas of the kidney constitute approximately 6% to 9% of renal cortical neoplasms.5

Pathologic Features of Renal Cortical Tumors

contain foamy macrophages, but acute or chronic

COLLECTING DUCT AND MEDULLARY

Fig. 4. Collecting duct carcinoma. As is typical for this

Tickoo & Gopalan

MUCINOUS TUBULAR AND SPINDLE

Fig. 5. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma. In

Henle.68,69 Comparative genomic hybridization

ACQUIRED CYSTIC DISEASE

HEREDITARY FORMS OF RENAL TUMORS

Pathologic Features of Renal Cortical Tumors

elucidated.83 Of the families identified with familial

IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY IN THE DIFFERENTIAL

Tickoo & Gopalan

of immunohistochemistry will allow for an accurate

Pathologic Features of Renal Cortical Tumors

Renal tumors Surgery History