World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 701–708 | Cite as

Predictive and prognostic effect of inflammatory lymphadenopathies in renal cell carcinoma

  • Fabio Muttin
  • Angela Pecoraro
  • Alessandro Larcher
  • Paolo Dell’Oglio
  • Alessandro Nini
  • Francesco Cianflone
  • Francesco Trevisani
  • Federico Dehò
  • Alberto Briganti
  • Andrea Salonia
  • Francesco Montorsi
  • Roberto Bertini
  • Umberto CapitanioEmail author
Original Article



A significant proportion of patients affected by renal cell carcinoma (RCC) shows a suspicious lymph node involvement (LNI) at preoperative imaging. We sought to evaluate the effect of lymphadenopathies (cN1) on survival in surgical RCC patients with no evidence of LNI at final pathology (pN0).


719 patients underwent either radical or partial nephrectomy and lymph node dissection at a single tertiary care referral centre between 1987 and 2015. All patients had pathologically no LNI (pN0). Outcomes of the study were cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality. Multivariable competing-risks regression models assessed the impact of inflammatory lymphadenopathies (cN1pN0) on mortality rates, after adjustment for clinical and pathological confounders.


114 (16%) and 605 (84%) patients (16%) were cN1pN0 and cN0pN0, respectively. cN1pN0 patients were more frequently diagnosed with larger tumours (8.4 vs. 6.5 cm), higher pathological tumour stage (pT3–4 in 71 vs. 36%), higher Fuhrman grade (G3–G4 in 64 vs. 31%), more frequently with necrosis (75 vs. 44%), and distant metastases (33 vs. 10%) (all p < 0.0001). At univariable analysis, inflammatory lymphadenopathies resulted associated with worse CSM (HR 2.45; p < 0.0001). However, at multivariable analysis, inflammatory lymphadenopathies were not an independent predictor of CSM (HR 0.81; p = 0.4). The presence of metastases at diagnosis was the most important factor affecting CSM (HR 6.54; p < 0.0001). This study is limited by its retrospective nature.


In RCC patients, inflammatory lymphadenopathies (cN1pN0) are associated with unfavourable clinical and pathological characteristics. However, the presence of inflammatory lymphadenopathies does not affect RCC-specific mortality.


Renal cell carcinoma Lymphadenopathy Lymph node invasion Lymphadenectomy Lymph node dissection 


Authors’ contributions

RB: supervision and critical revision for important intellectual content. AB: supervision and critical revision for important intellectual content. UC: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript editing, supervision, and critical revision for important intellectual content. FC: data collection. FD: data collection. PD: data collection and manuscript editing. Alessandro Larcher: project development, data analysis, and manuscript editing. FM: supervision and critical revision for important intellectual content. FM: data collection, manuscript writing, and manuscript editing. AN: data collection. AP: data collection and manuscript writing. AS: supervision and critical revision for important intellectual content. FT: data collection


This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

345_2018_2412_MOESM1_ESM.docx (113 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 113 kb)


  1. 1.
    European Association of Urology (2018) Guidelines on renal cell carcinoma.
  2. 2.
    Motzer RJ (2018) Kidney cancer, version 4.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology, pp 1–59Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capitanio U, Montorsi F (2016) Renal cancer. Lancet 387:894–906. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coll DM, Smith RC (2007) Update on radiological imaging of renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 99:1217–1222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Türkvatan A, Akdur PO, Altinel M et al (2009) Preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma with multidetector CT. Diagn Interv Radiol 15:22–30Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connolly SS, Raja A, Stunell H et al (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative computed tomography used alone to detect lymph-node involvement at radical nephrectomy. 49:142–148. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Studer UE, Scherz S, Scheidegger J et al (1990) Enlargement of regional lymph nodes in renal cell carcinoma is often not due to metastases. J Urol 144:243–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Capitanio U, Leibovich BC (2016) The rationale and the role of lymph node dissection in renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Capitanio U, Becker F, Blute ML et al (2011) Lymph node dissection in renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 60:1212–1220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blute ML, Leibovich BC, Cheville JC et al (2004) 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 172:465–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blom JHM, Van Poppel H, Maréchal JM et al (2009) Radical nephrectomy with and without lymph-node dissection: final results of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) randomized phase 3 trial 30881. Eur Urol 55:28–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Capitanio U, Dehó F, Dell’Oglio P et al (2016) Lymphadenopathies in patients with renal cell carcinoma: clinical and pathological predictors of pathologically confirmed lymph node invasion. World J Urol 34:1139–1145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larcher A, Dell’Oglio P, Salonia A, Capitanio U (2016) Against the role of inflammatory markers in renal cell carcinoma prognosis: the missing link between evidence of association and clinical applicability. Eur Urol Focus 2:343–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK (2017) AJCC cancer staging manual, 8th edn. Springer International Publishing. Chicago. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ming X, Ningshu L, Hanzhong L et al (2009) Value of frozen section analysis of enlarged lymph nodes during radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Urology 74:364–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vickers AJ, Sjoberg DD (2015) Guidelines for reporting of statistics in European urology. Eur Urol 67:181–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R Development Core Team (1992) R: a language and environment for statistical computing.
  19. 19.
    Gershman B, Moreira DM, Thompson RH et al (2017) Renal Cell carcinoma with isolated lymph node involvement: long-term natural history and predictors of oncologic outcomes following surgical resection. Eur Urol. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee HW, Jeon HG, Jeong BC et al (2015) Diagnostic and prognostic significance of radiologic node- positive renal cell carcinoma in the absence of distant metastases : a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing nephrectomy and lymph node dissection. J Korean Med Sci 30:1321–1327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lughezzani G, Capitanio U, Jeldres C et al (2009) Prognostic significance of lymph node invasion in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a population-based perspective. Cancer 115:5680–5687. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M (2010) Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell 140:883–899. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hutterer GC, Patard J-J, Perrotte P et al (2007) Patients with renal cell carcinoma nodal metastases can be accurately identified: external validation of a new nomogram. Int J Cancer 121:2556–2561. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crispen PL, Breau RH, Allmer C et al (2011) Lymph node dissection at the time of radical nephrectomy for high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma: indications and recommendations for surgical templates. Eur Urol 59:18–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Matloob R et al (2013) When to perform lymph node dissection in patients with renal cell carcinoma: a novel approach to the preoperative assessment of risk of lymph node invasion at surgery and of lymph node progression during follow-up. BJU Int 112:E59–E66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Babaian KN, Kim DY, Kenney PA et al (2015) Preoperative predictors of pathological lymph node metastasis in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Urol 193:1101–1107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gershman B, Takahashi N, Moreira DM et al (2016) Radiographic size of retroperitoneal lymph nodes predicts pathological nodal involvement for patients with renal cell carcinoma: development of a risk prediction model. BJU Int 118:742–749. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vasselli JR, Yang JC, Linehan WM et al (2001) Lack of retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy predicts survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166:68–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gershman B, Thompson RH, Moreira DM et al (2016) Radical nephrectomy with or without lymph node dissection for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score-based analysis. Eur Urol. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Muttin
    • 1
  • Angela Pecoraro
    • 1
  • Alessandro Larcher
    • 1
  • Paolo Dell’Oglio
    • 1
  • Alessandro Nini
    • 1
  • Francesco Cianflone
    • 1
  • Francesco Trevisani
    • 1
  • Federico Dehò
    • 1
  • Alberto Briganti
    • 1
  • Andrea Salonia
    • 1
  • Francesco Montorsi
    • 1
  • Roberto Bertini
    • 1
  • Umberto Capitanio
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI - Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteVita-Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations