Biological Markers in the Evaluation of Prognosis in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma

  • B. J. Schmitz-Dräger
  • D. Rohde
  • H. Frenzel
  • R. Ackermann
Conference paper

Abstract

Successful treatment of malignant disease is based on extensive knowledge of the biology of a given tumor and, as a consequence, the prognosis of the disease. At the moment, only a few parameters are known which correlate with the prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Several investigators could demonstrate a close correlation between tumor stage and patient survival (Böttiger 1970; Golimbu et al. 1986; Giuliani et al. 1983; Klöppel et al. 1986; Robson et al. 1969). The impact of the tumor grade on the prognosis of the disease is a matter of discussion. While some authors report a good correlation between tumor grade and the course of the disease, this could not be confirmed by others (Donhuijsen 1986; Fuhrman et al. 1982; Klöppel et al. 1986; Kofler et al. 1975; Syrjänen and Hjelt 1978). Recently, the value of biological markers, e.g., DNA content, the expression of differentiation or proliferation antigens and of antigens belonging to the cytoskeleton, has been investigated (Bohle et al. 1986; Fleming and Symes 1987; Fleming and Brown 1987; Ljungberg et al. 1986; Loy et al. 1986).

Keywords

Formaldehyde Acetone Carbohydrate Adenocarcinoma Polyethylene 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bohle B, Waldherr R, Schwechheimer K, Moldenhauer G, Momburg F (1986) Immunhistochemische Charakterisierung von Nierenzellkarzinomen. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 70: 274–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Böttiger LE (1970) Prognosis in renal carcinoma. Cancer 26: 780–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Donhuijsen K (1986) Nierenzellkarzinome: Prognostische Bedeutung der Zellkerngröße. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 70: 634Google Scholar
  4. Falkenberg FW, Ruffelmann HB, Müller E, Gutenberg W, Behrendt B, Waks T (1981) Monoclonal antibodies against antigens in the human kidney. In: Hämmerling GJ, Hämmerling U, Kearney JF (eds) Monoclonal antibodies and T-cell hybridomas. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 148–155Google Scholar
  5. Fleming S, Brown G (1987) The expression of 3-fucosylated-iV-acetyl lactosamine carbohydrate determinants in renal tumours. Histopathol 11: 171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fleming S, Symes CE (1987) The distribution of cytokeratin antigens in the kidney and in renal tumours. Histopathol 11: 157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6: 655–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giuliani L, Martorana G, Giberti C, Pescatore D, Magnani C (1983) Results of radical nephrectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 130: 664–668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Golimbu M, Joshi P, Sperber A, Tessler A, Al-Askari S, Morales P (1986) Renal cell carcinoma: survival and prognostic factors. Urology 27: 291–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hermanek P (1986) Neue TNM/pTNM-Klassifikation und Stadieneinteilung urologischer Tumorenab 1987. Urologe (B) 26: 193–197Google Scholar
  11. Hermanek P, Sigel A, Chlepas S (1976) Histological grading of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2: 189–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kearny JF, Radbruch A, Liesegang B, Rajewsky K (1979) A new mouse myeloma cell line that has lost immunoglobulin expression but permits the construction of antibody-secreting hybrid cell lines. J Immunol 123: 1548–1550Google Scholar
  13. Klöppel G, Knöfel WT, Baisch H, Otto U (1986) Prognosis of renal cell carcinoma related to nuclear grade, DNA content and Robson stage. Eur Urol 12: 426–431Google Scholar
  14. Kofler K, Reichl ER, Zischka-Konorsa W (1975) Statistische Untersuchungen zur Frage der Beziehungen zwischen Morphologie und Prognose bei Nierenparenchymcarcinomen. Virchows Arch [A] 368: 347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Köhler G, Milstein C (1975) Continuous culture of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. Nature 256: 495–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lieber MM, Tornera FM, Taylor WF, Farrow GM (1981) Renal adenocarcinoma in young adults: survival and variables affecting prognosis. J Urol 125: 164–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ljungberg B, Forsslund G, Stenling R, Zetterberg A (1986) The prognostic significance of nuclear DNA content in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 135: 422–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Loy V, Krech R, Gerdes J, Kramer W, Stein H (1986) Malignitätsgrad und Wachstumsfraktion beim Nierenzellkarzinom. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 70: 633Google Scholar
  19. Robson CJ, Churchill BM, Anderson W (1969) The results of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 101: 297–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Rohde D, Peschkes C, Ebert T, Ackermann R (1988) Monoklonale Antikörper gegen Harnblasenkarzinome - ein Beitrag zur Verbesserung der Diagnostik? Akt Urol 19: 217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skinner DG, Colvin RB, Vermillion CD, Pfister RC, Leadbetter WF (1971) The diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma: a clinical and pathologic study of 309 cases. Cancer 28: 1165–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Syijänen K, Hjelt L (1978) Grading of human renal adenocarcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol 12: 49–55Google Scholar
  23. Thoenes W, Störkel St, Rumpelt HJ (1985) Pathomorphologische Systematik und Nomenklatur der Nierenzelltumoren (insbesondere Nierenzellkarzinome) der Erwachsenen. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 69: 429Google Scholar
  24. Wright WC, Daniels WP, Fogh J (1981) Distinction of seventy-one cultured human tumor cell lines by polymorphic enzyme analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 66: 239–247PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. J. Schmitz-Dräger
    • 1
  • D. Rohde
    • 1
  • H. Frenzel
    • 2
  • R. Ackermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Düsseldorf, Medical SchoolDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PathologyUniversity of DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations