The Role Of Histological Components And Differentiation On Survival In Renal Wilms' Tumor

Year 2001, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 13 - 16, 01.04.2001

Safiye Aktaş Ragıp Ortaç İrfan Karaca Seda Geylani

Abstract

Wilms' tumor is the most common malignant neoplasm of kidney in childhood. The patients enjoy a
better prognosis by new advances in medicine. Histologically, the classic Wilms' tumor has a triphasic
appearance, composed of variable mixtures of blastemal, epithelial and stromal elements. Stromal or epithelial
elements may show different levels of differantiation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of histological
components and the presence of differentiation on survival in pediatric renalWilms' tumors.
This study includes 30 cases of renal Wilms' tumor diagnosed and followed at Dr.
Behçet Uz Children's State Hospital between 1989 and 1997. The mean age of patients was 51 months. Thirteen
cases were male and 17 cases were female. Poor prognosis (exitus) was observed in 8 cases.
The 4 year survival rate was %73,3. One case was monomorphic (blastemal) while 7 cases were biphasic
and 22 cases triphasic. The stromal component was dominant in 14 cases, blastemal component in 9 cases and
epithelial component in 7 cases. Striated muscle was observed in 8 cases, cartilage in 1 case and squamous tissue
in 1 case.
Statistical analysis showed no relationship between survival rate, histologic components and
occurance of differantiation in this series. We conclude that studying the known and new prognostic factors in
Wilms' tumor will be useful in the assessment of patients.

Keywords

Wilms' Tumor, histologic components, differentiation, survival

References

• 1. O' Toole KM, Brawn M, Hoffmann P. Pathology of benign and malignant kidney tumors. Urol Clin North Am 1993;20: 193-205.
• 2. Ater JL, Gooch WM, Bybee BL, O'brein RT. Poor prognosis for mucin-producing Wilms' tumor. Cancer 1984; 53: 319-323.
• 3. Green DM, D'Anjio GJ, Beckwith JB: Wilms' tumor. In Pizzo PA, Fopcek DG (eds). Principles and Practice of Pediatric Oncology. 2 ed. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott Company, 1997: 733-759.
• 4. Cheah PL, Lool LM, Chan LL. Immunohistochemical expression of p53 proteins in Wilms' tumor: A possible association with the histological prognostic parameter of anaplasia. Histopathol 1996; 38: 49-54.
• 5. Green DM, Coppes MJ. Future directions in clinical research in Wilms' tumor. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1995; 9:1329-1339.
• 6. Partin AW, Yoo JK, Crooks D,Epstein JI, Beckwith JB, Gearhart JP. Prediction of disease free survival after therapy in Wilms' tumor using nuclear morphometric techniques. J Ped Surg 1994; 29: 456-460.
• 7. Partin AW, Walsh AC, Epstein JI, Leventhal BG, Gearhart JP. Nuclear morphometry as a predict or of response to therapy in Wilms' tumor: A prelimnary report. J Urol 1990; 144: 952-954.
• 8. Faria P, Beckwith JB, Mishra K, Zuppan C, Weeks DA, Breslow N, Green DM. Focal versus diffuse anaplasia in Wilms' tumor new definitions with prognostic significance. A report from the National Wilms' Tumor Study Group. Am J Surg Pathol 1996; 20: 909- 920.
• 9. Gearhart JP, Partin AW, Leventhal B, Beckwith JB, Epstein JI. The use of nuclear morphometry to predict response to therapy in Wilms' tumor. Cancer 1992; 68: 804-808.
• 10. Beckwith JB. Wilms' tumor and other renal tumors of childhood: A selective review from the National Wilms' Tumor Study Pathology Center. Hum Pathol 1983; 14: 481- 492.
• 11. Breslow NE, Palmer NF, Hill LR, Buring J, D'angio GJ. Wilms' tumor: Prognostic factors for patients without methastases at diagnosis. Results of the National Wilms' Tumor Study. Cancer 1978; 41: 1577-1589.
• 12. Weeks DA, Beckwith JB, Luckey DW. Relapseassociated variables in stage I favorable histology Wilms' tumor. Cancer 1987; 60: 1204- 1212.
• 13. Beckwith JB, Zuppan CE, Browning NG,Moksness J, Breslow NE. Histological analysis of aggressiveness and responsiveness in Wilms' tumor. Med Ped Oncol 1996; 27: 422-428.
• 14. Sharma S, Nath P, Srivastava AN, Singh KM. Wilms' tumor: a clinicopathologic study with special reference to its morphologic variants. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 1995; 38: 55-62.
• 15. Green DM, Beckwith JB, Weeks DA, Moksness J, Breslow NE, D'angio GJ. The relationship between microsubstraging variables, age at diagnosis and tumor weight of children with stage I / Favorable histology Wilms' tumor. A report from the National Wilms' Tumor Study. Cancer 1994; 74: 1817-1820.
• 16. Beniers AJ, Efferth T, Fuzesi L, Granzen B, Mertens R, Jakse G. p53 expression in Wilms' tümör: a possible role as prognostic factor. Int J Oncol 2001; 18: 133-9.
• 17. Kim CJ, Oh MH, Shin HY, Ahn HS, Kim CW, Chi JG. Proliferating cell nuclear antigene expression inWilms' tumor: a comparative study of pre- and postchemotherapy specimens. Pathol Int 1996; 46: 137- 141.
• 18. Eggest A, Grotser MA, Ikegaki N, Zhao H, Cnaan A, Brodeur GM, Evans AE. Expression of the neurotrophin receptor TrkB is associated with unfavorable outcome in Wilms'tumor. J Clim Oncol 2001; 19: 689-696.
• 19. Ghanem MA, Van der Kwast TH, Den Hollander JC, Sudaryo MK, Oomen MH, Noordzij MA, Van den Heuvel MM, Nassef SM, Nijman RM, Van Steenbrugs GJ. Expression and prognostic value of Wilms'tumor 1 and early growth response 1 proteins in nephroblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6: 4265-4271.
• 20. Hing S, Lu YJ, Summersgill B, King-Underwood L, Nicholson J, Grundy P, Grundy R, Gossler M, Shipley J, Pritchard-Jones K. Gain of 1q is associated with adverse outcome in favorable histology Wilms' tumors. Am J Pathol 2001; 158: 393-398.