Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Does Tumor Grade Have any Prognostic Significance in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Clinicopathological Study Cover

Does Tumor Grade Have any Prognostic Significance in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Clinicopathological Study

Open Access
|Mar 2026

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Chromophobe tumor grades. A, Chromophobe tumor grade 1 (H&E 20X). B, Chromophobe tumor grade 1 (H&E 40X). C, Chromophobe tumor grade 2 (H&E 20X). D, Chromophobe tumor grade 2 (H&E 40X). E, Chromophobe tumor grade 3 (H&E 20X). F, Chromophobe tumor grade 3 (H&E 40X).

Figure 2.

A, Sarcomatoid differentiation with area of necrosis (H&E 40X). B, Necrosis (H&E 40X).

Figure 3.

Chromophobe tumor grade. A, Overall survival (months). B, Recurrence-free survival (months). C, Distant metastasis-free survival (months).

Figure 4.

Fuhrman nucleolar grade. A, Overall survival (months). B, Recurrence-free survival (months). C, Distant metastasis-free survival (months).

Figure 5.

Overall survival of adverse outcome with regard to Chromophobe tumor grade.

Figure 6.

Overall survival in relation to adverse outcomes concerning Fuhrman nucleolar grade.

Figure 7.

Association of the novel chromophobe tumor grade (CTG) with chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with adverse outcome (local recurrence, metastasis, and/or death owing to disease).

Correlation of the Fuhrman nucleolar grading system with coagulative tumor necrosis, sarcomatoid differentiation and TNM stage_

Fuhrman Nucleolar GradeTNM stage groupingsSarcomatoid DifferentiationTumor necrosis (%age)
N (%)Stage I N (%)Stage II N (%)Stage III N (%)Present N (%)Absent N (%)Group 1 (0%)Group 2 (1%–10%)Group 3 (>10%)
Grade 1 26 (51%)9 (34%)13 (50%)4 (15%)0 (0%)26 (100%)22 (77%)2 (8%)4 (15%)
Grade 2 20 (39.2%)7 (35%)8 (40%)5 (25%)0 (0%)20 (100%)17 (85%)0 (0%)3 (15%)
Grade 3 2 (3.9%)1 (50%)0 (0%)1 (50%)1 (50%)1 (50%)2 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Grade 4 3 (5.9%)1 (33%)1 (33%)1 (33%)1 (33%)2 (67%)2 (67%)0 (0%)1 (33%)

Correlation of Chromophobe grading system with coagulative tumor necrosis, sarcomatoid differentiation and TNM stage_

Novel ChRCC GradeTNM stage groupingsSarcomatoid DifferentiationTumor necrosis (%age)
N (%)Stage I N (%)Stage II N (%)Stage III N (%)Present N (%)Absent N (%)Group 1 (0%)Group 2 (1%–10%)Group 3 (>10%)
Grade 1 4 (7.8%)1 (25%)2 (50%)1 (25%)0 (0%)4 (100%)4 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Grade 2 31 (60.8%)11 (33%)15 (45%)5 (15%)0 (0%)31 (100%)27 (87%)2 (6%)2 (6%)
Grade 3 16 (31.4%)6 (37%)5 (31%)5 (31%)2 (12%)14 (88%)0 (0%)14 (87.5%)2 (12.5%)

Summary of Clinical and Pathological Features for 51 Patients with Chromophobe RCC_

FeatureSub-categoryMean (Median; Range)
Age at surgery (years) 46 (47; 25–70)

Maximum tumor size (cm) 9.6 (8.5; 4–17.5)

GenderFemale31 (60.8%)
N (%)Male20 (39.2%)

2017 Primary tumor classification N (%)pT1a2 (2%)
pT1b16 (31%)
pT2a10 (19%)
pT2b12 (23%)
pT3a11 (21%)
pT3b0
pT3c0
pT40

2017 regional lymph node involvement N (%)pNX and pN051 (100%)
pN10

Distant Metastasis N (%)pMX51 (100%)
pM10

2017 TNM stage groupings N (%)I18 (35%)
II22 (43%)
III11 (21%)
IV0

Sarcomatoid Differentiation N (%)Yes2 (4%)
No49 (96%)

Coagulative tumor necrosis N (%)0%43 (84%)
1% to 10%6 (11%)
>10%2 (4%)

Chromophobe RCC grade N (%)14 (7.8%)
231 (60.8%)
316 (31.4%)

Fuhrman Nucleolar Grade N (%)126 (51%)
220 (39.2%)
32 (3.9%)
43 (5.9%)
Language: English
Page range: 51 - 61
Published on: Mar 12, 2026
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2026 Shariqah Sadaf, Sajid Mushtaq, Madiha Syed, Usman Hassan, Mudassar Hussain, Asif Loya, Maryam Hameed, Umer Nisar Sheikh, published by Shakuat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.