Cohort study reveals architectural scoring lacks independent prognostic value over standard grading in clear cell renal cell carcinoma, indicating limited clinical utility except in low-grade cases.
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the most common RCC type, is characterized by poor prognosis and heterogeneous morphology. Recently, a prognostic ccRCC architectural grading system was proposed. Here, we evaluated the prognostic value of this architectural score. FFPE tissues were obtained from the population-based Netherlands Cohort Study. Architectural score was analyzed from digital slides (n=333) by two independent researchers. Clinicopathological data were collected from Dutch databases. Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association between architectural score and cause-specific survival (CSS), and models were compared with ROC curves, AICs and c-statistics. Architectural score was associated with all clinicopathological variables, besides age at diagnosis and sex, and was associated with CSS in univariate analyses (HR score 3 =2.70, HR score 4 =4.06, both P<0.001). However, in multivariate analyses (including age at diagnosis, sex, WHO/ISUP grade, TNM stage and tumor size), architectural score did not predict survival. Model fit was similar for models containing the architectural score and the 2022 WHO/ISUP grade (c-statistics: 0.69-0.73). Nevertheless, the architectural score was possibly found to be a significant predictor of survival in lower-grade WHO/ISUP tumors in post hoc analyses (P =0.008), but not in higher grade WHO/ISUP tumors. Although architectural scoring could be used to identify patients with a poor CSS, these effects are not independent of other established prognostic factors. However, architectural scoring might identify a high-risk subgroup that are low-grade WHO/ISUP tumors and might further refine ccRCC risk-stratification, yet, more research is needed to confirm this exploratory finding in larger cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kelly et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: