Abstract
The German guidelines on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have been developed at highest level of evidence based on systematic literature review. In this paper, we are presenting the current recommendations on diagnostics including preoperative imaging and imaging for stage evaluation as well as histopathological classification. The role of tumor biopsy is further discussed. In addition, different prognostic scores and the status of biomarkers in RCC are critically evaluated.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
During the last 2 decades, therapeutic options in renal cell tumors changed not only in metastatic but also in organ confirmed disease due to a broader range of systemic therapies as well as surgical techniques. In addition, more and more small renal masses are detected, and therefore, surveillance strategies and ablative therapies are under discussion. Accordingly, exact diagnosis by imaging as well as histopathology and prognostic evaluation are necessary to select the optimal treatment for each individual patient. In addition, there is an urgent need for molecular biomarkers to further increase diagnostic accuracy including non-invasive markers as well as prognostic markers to individualize treatment. In this manuscript, we present the German highest level systematic literature review-based interdisciplinary guidelines concerning imaging, histopathological classification, renal tumor biopsy, prognostic evaluation, and biomarkers for renal cell tumors (Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Nierenzellkarzinoms, Langversion 2.0,2020, AWMF Registernummer: 043/017OL, https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/Nierenzellkarzinom) [1].
Methods
The methodological approach is described in detail in the guidelines [1]. Briefly, evidence grade is based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) system. Three grades of recommendation have been used (A: strong recommendation; B: recommendation; 0: recommendation not defined). Four categories were used to define grade of consensus (strong consensus: > 95%; consensus: > 75%-95%; consensus by majority: 50–75%; dissent: < 50% agreement). If systematic search was not performed, recommendations are based on expert consensus.
Diagnostics: imaging
With the increasing number of incidentally detected renal cell carcinomas (RCC), the average size is decreasing continuously. The differential diagnosis of smaller lesions is difficult, as typical signs such as cava thrombus, necrosis, or metastasis are missing.
High-resolution imaging in CT and MRI can delineate even small and chromophobe carcinomas [2]. Staging accuracy of small RCC is similar in MRT and CT with staging accuracy between 0.78 and 0.87 [3]. CT is used routinely for small carcinomas [4], whereas tumor with caval thrombus should be staged with MRI [5] (Table 1).
The CT scan should include an unenhanced spiral of the complete abdomen and a spiral in the early arterial phase of renal perfusion of the upper abdomen and a delayed scan of the complete abdomen. For the CT, a reconstructed slice thickness of 2 mm should be used. An enhanced scan of the thorax in a venous phase can be added for staging. Especially for planning of nephron sparing surgery, high-resolution 3D reconstructions are mandatory. CT has a good accuracy in the evaluation of infiltration into the perirenal fat [6], but has a limited accuracy in the evaluation of intrarenal infiltration [7].
MRI as diagnostic modality is recommended in case of allergic reactions to iodine containing contrast media (CT) or suspected caval thrombus. The complete abdomen including the atrium and the lower pole of the kidneys should be scanned. The scans should include axial T2w images, axial enhanced T1w images and a coronal multiphase acquisition with an unenhanced scan, an early arterial phase, and a parenchymal phase. In case of urogenital bleeding a delayed scan for complete urothelium including bladder should be added. Especially, the high-resolution T2w images allow a delineation of the tumor thrombus [4].
Sensitivity and specificity of caval thrombus evaluation are 1.0 and 0.83 for MRI [5].
For grading, RCC diffusion and perfusion imaging seem to be a promising tool [8,9,10]. As imaging can hardly differentiate between histologic subtypes, despite of classic AMl, additional biopsy might be useful for therapy planning.
Although prospective trials provide high level of evidence, more data are desirable to corroborate the recommendations.
Imaging for evaluation of metastasis
In patients with tumor size of 3 cm and higher, unenhanced and enhanced thin slice CT (2 mm) of the thorax should be performed, because the risk of metastasis is increasing. CT has a much higher sensitivity and specificity to detect lung metastases than conventional chest X-ray as CT allows to detect small calcifications and fat in pulmonary lesions, and can therefore differentiate the pulmonary lesions [4, 11,12,13]. For detection of abdominal lesions, MRI and CT have similar detection rates. If brain metastases are suspected, MRI should be used due to its better capability to detect metastases and edema in the brain (Table 2).
Biopsy
In cases of uncertain renal lesions, it would be helpful to perform biopsies for histopathological evaluation, especially in patients who are candidates for active surveillance or renal tumor ablation (Table 3). Volpe et al. described a 16% reduction of surgery [14]. However, there is the possibility of false-negative results.
Under local anaesthetics, percutaneous sampling can be performed as core biopsy or fine needle aspiration, alone or in combination, US or CT-guided. Fine-needle aspiration shows lower diagnostic yield and accuracy [14, 15], which can be improved by adding 18 Gauge core biopsy [16,17,18].
Systematic reviews reported a comparatively high diagnostic yield, sensitivity, and specificity for the diagnosis of malignancy (99.1% and 99.7%) when using core biopsy [14, 19, 20].
In tumors > 4 cm, peripheral ultrasound guided biopsies are recommended to avoid sampling of central areas with tumor necrosis [21].
An issue of renal lesion biopsy emphasizes the problem of managing negative biopsy results (0–22.6%). Repeat biopsy is diagnostic in most patients (83–100%) [22, 23]. Therefore, an indeterminate or negative biopsy result but suspicious imaging findings should prompt a repeat biopsy or be interpreted as RCC if repeated biopsy is impossible.
Core biopsy of cystic renal lesions has a lower diagnostic yield and accuracy compared to solid lesions and is therefore not recommended [24].
The morbidity of percutaneous biopsy is low [14, 19]. Tumor cell seeding along the needle tract is unlikely. In a recent pooled analysis, spontaneously resolving and clinically insignificant subcapsular perinephric hematoma was reported in 4.3% of biopsies [25].
Histopathological classification
The recommendations are based on the consensus conference and the most recent guidelines [26,27,28] (Table 4).
The WHO Classification of 2004 presented a comprehensive histopathological classification of RCC, which were revised in 2013 by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in the Vancouver Classification [28]. In the consensus conference of the S3-Guidelines the diagnosis of the following new entities was recommended: Tubulocystic RCC, Acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, Clear cell papillary RCC, MiT-family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation or t(16; 11) translocation, Hereditary leiomyomatosis, and renal cell carcinoma-associated RCC. These entities were also recommended by the WHO classification of 2016.
Renal cell tumors
-
Papillary adenoma
-
Oncocytoma
-
Clear cell RCC
-
Multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential
-
Papillary RCC
-
Chromophobe RCC
-
Collecting duct carcinoma
-
Renal medullary carcinoma
-
MiT-family translocation RCC
-
○
Xp11 translocation RCC
-
○
t(16; 11) RCC
-
○
-
Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient RCC
-
Mucinous tubular and spindle cell RCC
-
Tubulocystic RCC
-
Acquired cystic disease-associated RCC
-
Clear cell papillary RCC
-
Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma-associated RCC
-
Unclassified RCC.
Metanephric tumors
-
Metanephric adenoma
-
Metanephric adenofibroma
-
Metanephric stromal tumors.
Nephroblastic tumors
-
Nephroblastoma
-
Cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma
-
Pediatric cystic nephroma.
Mesenchymal tumors occurring mainly in children
-
Clear cell sarcoma
-
Rhabdoid tumor
-
Congenital mesoblastic nephroma
-
Ossifying renal tumor of infancy.
Mesenchymal tumors occurring mainly in adults
-
Angiomyolipoma
-
Epitheloid angiomyolipoma
-
Leiomyoma
-
Hemangioma
-
Juxtaglomerular cell tumor
-
Renomedullary interstitial cell tumor
-
Schwannoma
-
Solitary fibrous tumor
-
Neuroectodermal tumor
-
Synovial sarcoma
-
Leiomyosarcoma
-
Angiosarcoma
-
Rhabdomyosarcoma.
Mixed epithelial and stromal tumors
-
Adult cystic nephroma/mixed epithelial stromal tumor (MEST).
Neuroendocrine tumors
-
Low-grade neuroendocrine tumor
-
High-grade neuroendocrine tumor/neuroendocrine carcinoma
-
Neuroblastoma
-
Pheochromocytoma.
Hematopoietic and lymphoid tumors
-
Lymphoma
-
Leukemia
-
Plasmacytoma.
Germ cell tumors
Metastatic renal cell carcinoma
In the consensus meeting, the classical histopathological parameters and the grading system for RCC were discussed. It was recommended that the tumor grade of RCC should be given according to the WHO-ISUP grading system. There is a clear correlation of the grade with the prognosis in clear cell and papillary RCC. Papillary RCC should be separated in two types (Type 1 with low grade and basophilic cytoplasm and Type 2 with high grade and eosinophilic cytoplasm). Papillary RCC Type 1 has an excellent prognosis. Furthermore, it was recommended that chromophobe RCC should not be graded. Other histological features were discussed. A sarcomatoid and rhabdoid differentiation should be mentioned in the histopathological report, because it is clearly associated with a poorer prognosis. The proportion of necrosis is also associated with a poorer prognosis and should be given.
The grading of chromophobe RCC has to be improved. The new grading systems proposed by Paner et al., Avulova et al., and Ohashi et al. are based on the pattern of the tumor and show that necrosis and sarcomatoid dedifferentiation are the most important factors for an adverse outcome [29,30,31]. Therefore, this should be mentioned in every report, which is also stated in the guideline. However, prospective data are still lacking. Thus, the grading is still not recommended by the WHO.
The data for microvascular invasion in lymph or blood vessels as a poor prognostic factor are not sufficient.
A new edition of the TNM classification is available since 2017 [32].
Prognostic scores
TNM staging and grading still represent the most important characteristics for prognostic evaluation. However, these parameters are not sufficient to evaluate the individual prognosis in a given patient. Therefore, several prognostic models have been developed to predict outcome at different time points of disease and therefore select patients for different therapeutic options. These models should improve the prognostic accuracy compared to standard TNM stage and grade (Table 5).
Although some preoperative nomograms exist, majority of models have been developed for postoperative evaluation. The first aim is to evaluate the risk of progression/metastasis and survival in local disease. The following nomograms have been created: UISS (UCLA Integrated Staging Aystem)-model [33], Karakiewicz-nomograms [34, 35], SSIGN-score [36], Leibovich-score [37], Kattan-nomogram [38], Sorbellini-nomogram [39], and papillary nomogram [40]. Some of these nomograms are developed for clear cell RCCs only; others did not differentiate histological subtypes. Most of them are validated in independent patient cohorts (Table 5). The second aim is to predict the outcome of metastatic patients treated with systemic therapy. The Motzer or MSKCC-score is the first and mostly used nomogram developed for patient cohorts treated with interferon [41]. However, it is still used in the tyrosine kinase inhibitors era, too. Additional nomograms include the IMDC or Heng-score [42], the International Kidney Cancer Working Group-Modell (IKCWG)-model [43], the Cleveland Clinic Foundation-Modell (CCF)-model [44], the French model [45], the Sunitinib model [46], and the Leibovich Score before immune therapy [47].
Currently, Motzer score and the IMDC-nomogram are most frequently used models to categorize patients in risk groups and thereof to predict outcome in clinical trials and practice.
Biomarkers
Diagnostic biomarkers could improve early detection and differential diagnosis in addition to histopathological evaluation, especially in small renal masses. In addition, there is an urgent need in prognostic biomarkers to define individual outcome of RCC patients and, therefore, to select the most appropriate therapy.
During the last years, several biomarkers on different molecular levels (DNA, RNA, and proteins) have been published that are correlated with metastasis and survival of RCC patients [48,49,50,51]. Some of these markers have been analyzed in comparison to existing clinical prognostic parameters or have been incorporated in prognostic scores, and improved prognostic accuracy [52,53,54]. Due to the lack of independent prospective validation, none of these markers has been introduced in clinical routine (Table 6).
However, it is likely that new prognostic markers will be identified from complex high-throughput analyses on several molecular levels in parallel considering clinical course [55,56,57,58].
Currently, several molecular signatures alone or integrated into clinical models have been published which are partially validated in independent cohorts. Almost all have a superior accuracy to predict individual patient outcome compared to clinically based nomograms [57, 59,60,61,62].
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
S3-Leitlinie Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge der testikulären Keimzelltumoren, Langversion 1.1 [Internet]. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF 2020
Raman SP et al (2013) Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: multiphase mdct enhancement patterns and morphologic features. Am J Roentgenol 201(6):1268–1276
Hallscheidt PJ et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of staging renal cell carcinomas using multidetector-row computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging—a prospective study with histopathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28(3):333–339
Sheth S et al (2001) Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma: role of multidetector CT and three-dimensional CT. Radiographics 21:S237–S254
Hallscheidt PJ et al (2005) Preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava thrombus using multidetector CT and MRI–—prospective study with histopathological correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 29(1):64–68
Kim C, Choi HJ, Cho KS (2014) Diagnostic value of multidetector computed tomography for renal sinus fat invasion in renal cell carcinoma patients. Eur J Radiol 83(6):914–918
Karlo CA et al (2013) Role of CT in the assessment of muscular venous branch invasion in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 201(4):847–852
Israel GM, Hecht E, Bosniak MA (2006) CT and MR imaging of complications of partial nephrectomy. Radiographics 26(5):1419–1429
Vargas HA et al (2013) Multiphasic contrast-enhanced MRI: single-slice versus volumetric quantification of tumor enhancement for the assessment of renal clear-cell carcinoma fuhrman grade. J Magn Reson Imaging 37(5):1160–1167
Hallscheidt P et al (2002) Organ-sparing surgery of renal cell carcinoma—operative technique and findings in radiological follow-up. Rofo-Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiet Der Rontgenstrahlen Und Der Bildgebenden Verfahren 174(4):409–415
Bechtold RE, Zagoria RJ (1997) Imaging approach to staging of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 24(3):507–510
Heidenreich A, Ravery V (2004) Preoperative imaging in renal cell cancer. World J Urol 22(5):307–315
Miles KA et al (1991) Ct staging of renal-carcinoma—a prospective comparison of 3 dynamic computed-tomography techniques. Eur J Radiol 13(1):37–42
Volpe A et al (2012) Rationale for percutaneous biopsy and histologic characterisation of renal tumours. Eur Urol 62(3):491–504
Volpe A et al (2007) Techniques, safety and accuracy of sampling of renal tumors by fine needle aspiration and core biopsy. J Urol 178(2):379–386
Barwari K et al (2013) What is the added value of combined core biopsy and fine needle aspiration in the diagnostic process of renal tumours? World J Urol 31(4):823–827
Li G et al (2012) Combination of core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration increases diagnostic rate for small solid renal tumors. Anticancer Res 32(8):3463–3466
Parks GE et al (2011) Benefits of a combined approach to sampling of renal neoplasms as demonstrated in a series of 351 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 35(6):827–835
Lane BR et al (2008) Renal mass biopsy—a renaissance? J Urol 179(1):20–27
Phe V et al (2012) Is there a contemporary role for percutaneous needle biopsy in the era of small renal masses? BJU Int 109(6):867–872
Wunderlich H et al (2005) The accuracy of 250 fine needle biopsies of renal tumors. J Urol 174(1):44–46
Menogue SR et al (2013) Percutaneous core biopsy of small renal mass lesions: a diagnostic tool to better stratify patients for surgical intervention. BJU Int 111(4B):E146–E151
Leveridge MJ et al (2011) Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondiagnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 60(3):578–584
Lang EK et al (2002) CT-guided biopsy of indeterminate renal cystic masses (Bosniak 3 and 2F): accuracy and impact on clinical management. Eur Radiol 12(10):2518–2524
Marconi L et al (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol 69(4):660–673
Renal cell carcinoma. Nation-wide guideline, Version: 2.0. 2010.
Srigley JR et al (2013) The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) vancouver classification of renal neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 37(10):1469–1489
Delahunt B et al (2013) The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for renal cell carcinoma and other prognostic parameters. Am J Surg Pathol 37(10):1490–1504
Avulova S et al (2021) Grading chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: evidence for a four-tiered classification incorporating coagulative tumor necrosis. Eur Urol 79(2):225–231
Ohashi R et al (2020) Multi-institutional re-evaluation of prognostic factors in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: proposal of a novel two-tiered grading scheme. Virchows Arch 476(3):409–418
Paner GP et al (2010) A novel tumor grading scheme for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma prognostic utility and comparison with fuhrman nuclear grade. Am J Surg Pathol 34(9):1233–1240
Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (eds) (2017) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 8th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
Zisman A et al (2002) Risk group assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to predict the natural history of patients with surgically resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 20(23):4559–4566
Hutterer GC et al (2008) Patients with distant metastases from renal cell carcinoma can be accurately identified: external validation of a new nomogram. BJU Int 101(1):39–43
Karakiewicz PI et al (2007) Multi-institutional validation of a new renal cancer-specific survival nomogram. J Clin Oncol 25(11):1316–1322
Frank I et al (2002) An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: The SSIGN score. J Urol 168(6):2395–2400
Leibovich BC et al (2003) Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer 97(7):1663–1671
Kattan MW et al (2001) A postoperative prognostic nomogram for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166(1):63–67
Sorbellini M et al (2005) A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence for patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 173(1):48–51
Klatte T et al (2010) Development and external validation of a nomogram predicting disease specific survival after nephrectomy for papillary renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 184(1):53–58
Motzer RJ et al (2004) Prognostic factors for survival in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 22(3):454–463
Heng DYC et al (2009) Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents: results from a large, multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 27(34):5794–5799
Manola J et al (2011) Prognostic model for survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the international kidney cancer working group. Clin Cancer Res 17(16):5443–5450
Choueiri TK et al (2007) Clinical factors associated with outcome in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. Cancer 110(3):543–550
Negrier S et al (2002) Prognostic factors of survival and rapid progression in 782 patients with metastatic renal carcinomas treated by cytokines: a report from the Groupe Francais d’Immunotherapie. Ann Oncol 13(9):1460–1468
Bamias A et al (2013) Development and validation of a prognostic model in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib: a European collaboration. Br J Cancer 109(2):332–341
Leibovich BC et al (2003) Scoring algorithm to predict survival after nephrectomy and immunotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma—a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer 98(12):2566–2575
Eichelberg C et al (2009) Diagnostic and prognostic molecular markers for renal cell carcinoma: a critical appraisal of the current state of research and clinical applicability. Eur Urol 55(4):851–863
Tan PH et al (2013) Renal tumors: diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Am J Surg Pathol 37(10):1518–1531
Junker K et al (2013) Potential role of genetic markers in the management of kidney cancer. Eur Urol 63(2):333–340
Finley DS, Pantuck AJ, Belldegrun AS (2011) Tumor biology and prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma. Oncologist 16(Suppl 2):4–13
Klatte T et al (2009) Molecular signatures of localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma to predict disease-free survival after nephrectomy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18(3):894–900
Parker AS et al (2009) Development and evaluation of BioScore: a biomarker panel to enhance prognostic algorithms for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 115(10):2092–2103
Sun M et al (2011) Prognostic factors and predictive models in renal cell carcinoma: a contemporary review. Eur Urol 60(4):644–661
Cancer Genome Atlas Research, et al (2013) Comprehensive molecular characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Nature 499(7456):43–49
Sato Y et al (2013) Integrated molecular analysis of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Nat Genet 45(8):860–867
Brooks SA et al (2014) ClearCode34: a prognostic risk predictor for localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 66(1):77–84
Davis CF et al (2014) The somatic genomic landscape of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell 26(3):319–330
Grimm J et al (2019) Metastatic risk stratification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients based on genomic aberrations. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.22749
Heinzelmann J et al (2019) 4-miRNA score predicts the individual metastatic risk of renal cell carcinoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol 26(11):3765–3773
Rini B et al (2015) A 16-gene assay to predict recurrence after surgery in localised renal cell carcinoma: development and validation studies. Lancet Oncol 16(6):676–685
Buttner F et al (2015) Survival prediction of clear cell renal cell carcinoma based on gene expression similarity to the proximal tubule of the nephron. Eur Urol 68(6):1016–1020
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. supported the development of the German guidelines on renal cell carcinoma.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KJ: protocol/project development, data collection or management, and manuscript writing/editing. PH: data collection or management, and manuscript writing/editing. HW: data collection or management, and manuscript writing/editing. AH: protocol/project development, data collection or management, and manuscript writing/editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Kerstin Junker: Stockholder: Novartis Pharma GmbH, Bayer AG; Honoraria for lectures: IPSEN Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Pharma GmbH; Financial support of research projects: IPSEN Pharma GmbH. Peter Hallscheidt: No conflicts of interest. Heiko Wunderlich: Honoraria for lectures or consulting/advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, IPSEN Pharma GmbH, Janssen, MSD Sharp&Dohme GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Roche; Coordinating Investigator: Cabocare-Study (NIS) by IPSEN Pharma GmbH. Arndt Hartmann: Honoraria for lectures or consulting/advisory boards for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Biontech, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cepheid, Diaceutics, Illumina, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Qiagen, QUIP GmbH, Roche, 3DHistotech and other research support from AstraZeneca, Biontech, Cepheid, Illumina, Janssen, Nanostring, Qiagen, QUIP GmbH, Roche.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Junker, K., Hallscheidt, P., Wunderlich, H. et al. Diagnostics and prognostic evaluation in renal cell tumors: the German S3 guidelines recommendations. World J Urol 40, 2373–2379 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-03972-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-03972-x