Grading Challenges and Prognostic Insights in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of 72 Patients

Chromophobe RCC (ChRCC) carries the best prognosis among all RCC subtypes, yet it lacks a proper grading system. Various systems have been suggested in the past, causing much controversy, and Avulova et al. recently proposed a promising four-tier grading system that takes into consideration tumor necrosis. Dysregulation of the mammalian target of the rapamycin (mTOR) pathway plays a key role in ChRCC pathogenesis, highlighting its molecular complexity. The present retrospective study aimed to evaluate the prognostic factors associated with a more aggressive ChRCC phenotype. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two patients diagnosed with ChRCC between 2004 and 2017 were included in our study. Pathology reports and tissue blocks were reviewed, and immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed in order to assess the expressions of CYLD (tumor-suppressor gene) and mTOR, among other markers. Univariate analysis was performed, and OS was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: In our study, 74% of patients were male, with a mean age of 60 years, and the mean tumor size was 63 mm (±44). The majority (54%) were followed for more than 10 years at intervals ranging between 44 and 222 months. The risk of death was significantly higher for patients that were classified as Grade 4 in the Avulova system (HR: 5.83; 95% CI, 1.37-24.7; p: = 0.017). As far as the IHC is concerned, mTOR expression was associated with an HR of 8.57 (95% CI, 1.91-38.5; p = 0.005), and CYLD expression was associated with an HR of 17.3 (95% CI, 1.57-192; p = 0.02). Conclusions: In our study, the Avulova grading system seems to be positively correlated with OS in patients diagnosed with ChRCC. Furthermore, an elevated mTOR expression also shows a negative correlation with OS, whereas an elevated CYLD expression does not seem to exert a protective role. However, because only a small proportion (4.2%) of our patients died due to ChRCC, despite the long follow-up period, the results must be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed to validate our findings.