Attention: Restrictions on use of AUA, AUAER, and UCF content in third party applications, including artificial intelligence technologies, such as large language models and generative AI.
You are prohibited from using or uploading content you accessed through this website into external applications, bots, software, or websites, including those using artificial intelligence technologies and infrastructure, including deep learning, machine learning and large language models and generative AI.
JU INSIGHT Mayo Clinic Validation of AUA Risk Groups for Renal Cell Carcinoma
By: Andrew Zganjar, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Abhinav Khanna, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Dan Joyce, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Paige Nichols, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Cameron Britton, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Christine M. Lohse, MS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; John C. Cheville, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Sounak Gupta, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Aaron M. Potretzke, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; R. Houston Thompson, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Bradley C. Leibovich, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Stephen A. Boorjian, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Vidit Sharma, MD, MS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota | Posted on: 14 Aug 2024
Zganjar A, Khanna A, Joyce D, et al. Mayo Clinic validation of the AUA risk groups for localized renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2024;212(2):331-341. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000004030
Study Need and Importance
The AUA guidelines introduced a parsimonious risk stratification system of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with surgery that relies on grade, stage, and margin status. The AUA guidelines recommend specific follow-up schedules for surveillance based on this risk stratification. However, the performance of this risk stratification system has not been validated. We queried our prospectively maintained Nephrectomy Registry to identify adults treated with radical or partial nephrectomy for unilateral, M0, clear cell RCC or papillary RCC from 1980 to 2012 to determine how the AUA risk groups stratified patients for progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). We also presented the results of our institutional models as a reference to gauge the relative performance of the simpler AUA risk stratification system.
What We Found
In a cohort of 3191 patients with clear cell RCC and 633 patients with papillary RCC, the C indexes for the AUA risk stratification system were 0.780 (clear cell RCC) and 0.775 (papillary RCC) when measuring PFS, and were 0.811 (clear cell RCC) and 0.830 (papillary RCC) when measuring CSS over 10 years. This performed similarly to our institutional models and stratified both clear cell and papillary RCC patients over 10 years postoperatively (Figure). These data support using the AUA RCC risk stratification system for the follow-up of surgically treated patients with localized renal masses.
Limitations
Our data suffer from the limitations of a single institution database that is retrospectively reviewed. Since the AUA risk groups incorporate grade, they are less applicable to chromophobe RCC.
Interpretation for Patient Care
The AUA risk grouping has acceptable discriminative value for PFS and CSS after radical or partial nephrectomy for clear cell or papillary RCC. This supports survivorship follow-up schedules based on this system as stated in the AUA guidelines.
advertisement
advertisement