scholarly journals PAX8 EXPRESSION AND ITS ASSOCIATIONS IN PRIMARY RENAL CELL CARCINOMA: A CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-17
Author(s):  
Ahmed Zamir ◽  
Farhan Akhtar ◽  
Samina Waqar ◽  
Aminah Hanif
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Tumor Type ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pax8 Expression

Objective: To determine the frequency of PAX8 expression in cases of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and its association with patient demographics and tumor type. Study Design: Cross sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Histopathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rawalpindi, from Jun 2016 to Jun 2017. Methodology: After ethics approval, 57 cases were selected by non probability consecutive sampling. Inclusion criteria was diagnosis of primary renal cell carcinoma of all histological types, in both genders, among adults aged >18 years. Exclusion criteria were poorly fixed specimens and metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The main outcome measure was PAX8 frequency in renal cell carcinoma. The secondary outcome measure was correlation of PAX8 expression with age, gender, tumor type and grade. Data was entered and analyzed on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Results: Out of 57 cases, majority were males 37, (64.9%). The mean age was 55.35 ± 12.60 years. Clear cell carcinoma was the most frequent histopathologic variant in 47 (81%) cases followed by papillary carcinoma in 6 (10.2%), chromophobe cell carcinoma 2 (3.5%), sarcomatoid renal carcinoma 1 (1.75%) and mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma 1 (1.75%). PAX8 expression was positive in 52 (91.2%). No significant difference was found in the frequency of PAX8 expression across age (p=0.321), gender (p=1.00) and tumor type (p=1.00). There was significant difference seen across tumor grade p=0.03. Conclusion: PAX8 is an important additional diagnostic marker for renal cell carcinoma. It can be recommended for inclusion in immunohistochemical panel for diagnosis..............

scholarly journals A Comprehensive Analysis of Renal Cell Carcinoma as First and Second Primary Cancers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinchao Chen ◽  
Jianmin Lou ◽  
Yedie He ◽  
Zhenjie Zhu ◽  
Shaoxing Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Renal Surgery ◽  
Renal Masses ◽  
Prognostic Features ◽  
Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Objective Second primary renal cell carcinoma (2nd RCC) refers to renal cell carcinoma (RCC) diagnosed after another unrelated malignancy. This study aims Tto compare the clinical manifestation, pathology, treatment, and prognostic features of patients with second primary renal cell carcinoma (2nd RCC) and first primary renal cell carcinoma (1st RCC). Materials and Methods Data of the Ppatients with localized RCC were retrospectively collected. They were classified as 2nd RCC or 1st RCC according to a previously diagnosed cancer, including 113 cases of 2nd RCC and 749 cases of 1st RCC. ResultsThe most common types of extrarenal malignancies in patients with 2nd RCC include lung, colorectal, breast, gynecological, and gastric cancers. The age and smoking rate of 2nd RCC patients were significantly higher than in those of 1st RCC patients. For 2nd RCC patients, fFewer 2nd RCC patients had clinical symptoms and a large renal masses tend to be smaller. One hundred and eight (95.6%) patients with 2nd RCC received surgical interventions. All patients with 1st RCC underwent renal surgery. More patients with 2nd RCC underwent a partial nephrectomy. Pathologically, there was no significant difference in postoperative pathological types between the 2nd and 1st RCCs. However, the 2nd RCCs commonly occurred inhad the early stages. The median overall survival (OS) of 2nd RCC patients was 117 months, which was shorter than that of 1st RCC patients. ConclusionsPatients with 2ndSecond RCC are not uncommon. More attention should be paid to screening for 2nd RCC in cancer survivors. There are some differences between patients with 2nd and 1st RCCs that should be viewed separately.

502: Effect of Sunitinib in Patients with Unresectable Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 167-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anil Thomas ◽  
Brian R. Lane ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Steven C. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma

scholarly journals Prognostic Value of Plasma hPG80 (Circulating Progastrin) in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 375
Author(s):  
Manish Kohli ◽  
Winston Tan ◽  
Bérengère Vire ◽  
Pierre Liaud ◽  
Mélina Blairvacq ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Risk Model ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Significant Difference

Precise management of kidney cancer requires the identification of prognostic factors. hPG80 (circulating progastrin) is a tumor promoting peptide present in the blood of patients with various cancers, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this study, we evaluated the prognostic value of plasma hPG80 in 143 prospectively collected patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). The prognostic impact of hPG80 levels on overall survival (OS) in mRCC patients after controlling for hPG80 levels in non-cancer age matched controls was determined and compared to the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model (good, intermediate, poor). ROC curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hPG80 using the area under the curve (AUC). Our results showed that plasma hPG80 was detected in 94% of mRCC patients. hPG80 levels displayed high predictive accuracy with an AUC of 0.93 and 0.84 when compared to 18–25 year old controls and 50–80 year old controls, respectively. mRCC patients with high hPG80 levels (>4.5 pM) had significantly lower OS compared to patients with low hPG80 levels (<4.5 pM) (12 versus 31.2 months, respectively; p = 0.0031). Adding hPG80 levels (score of 1 for patients having hPG80 levels > 4.5 pM) to the six variables of the IMDC risk model showed a greater and significant difference in OS between the newly defined good-, intermediate- and poor-risk groups (p = 0.0003 compared to p = 0.0076). Finally, when patients with IMDC intermediate-risk group were further divided into two groups based on hPG80 levels within these subgroups, increased OS were observed in patients with low hPG80 levels (<4.5 pM). In conclusion, our data suggest that hPG80 could be used for prognosticating survival in mRCC alone or integrated to the IMDC score (by adding a variable to the IMDC score or by substratifying the IMDC risk groups), be a prognostic biomarker in mRCC patients.

Synchronous and Metachronous Contralateral Adrenal Metastases from Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma

1997 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avi Stein ◽  
Yoel Mecz ◽  
Yanina Sova ◽  
Miriam Lurie ◽  
Aharon Lurie
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Adrenal Metastases ◽  
Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma

scholarly journals Mediastinal Metastasis 10 Years after Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma<br/>—A Report of a Case and a Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 06 (08) ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
Mustafa Rifat ◽  
Usama Nihad Rifat ◽  
Khalid Al-Safi ◽  
Hassan Z. Annab
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Mediastinal Metastasis

scholarly journals T-cell Responses in the Microenvironment of Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma—Implications for Adoptive Cell Therapy

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rikke Andersen ◽  
Marie Christine Wulff Westergaard ◽  
Julie Westerlin Kjeldsen ◽  
Anja Müller ◽  
Natasja Wulff Pedersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Adoptive Cell Therapy ◽  
T Cell Responses ◽  
Cell Responses ◽  
Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma

Comparison of First-line Pazopanib and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Experiences of the Urologic Cancer Centre for Research and Innovation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily C.L. Wong ◽  
Camilla Tajzler ◽  
Gaurav Vasisth ◽  
Amanda Zhu ◽  
Mathilda Chow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Sunitinib and pazopanib are orally-administered tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitors (TKIs) approved as first-line therapy for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The IMDC criteria are a predictive prognostic model for patients with mRCC when stratified into three prognosis groups: favourable, intermediate and poor. We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line therapy for patients with mRCC in our single institution database. Methods: Retrospective analysis was done to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and side effects of sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC. Patients were stratified into prognosis groups according to IMDC criteria. Disease assessment was performed on measurable aspects of disease based on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging reports. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression, with disease progression as the endpoint.Results: Data was obtained from 228 patients with mRCC who were treated with either pazopanib (n=57) or sunitinib (n=171). No significant difference in PFS was found between sunitinib and pazopanib (HR for disease progression or all-cause death, 1.10; 95%CI: 0.76-1.57, p=0.62). Median PFS time for patients receiving sunitinib was 9.4 months and for pazopanib, 8.5 months. Median PFS for patients with intermediate-risk disease was similar between groups (9.4 months vs. 9.2 months, respectively, p=0.93). However, patients treated with sunitinib experienced a greater number of side effects compared to pazopanib. Conclusions: Sunitinib and pazopanib are similarly efficacious as first-line therapy for mRCC. However, adverse events are lower with pazopanib.

scholarly journals Correlation between radiological and histopathological findings in patients undergoing nephrectomy for presumed renal cell carcinoma on computed tomography scan at Grey’s Hospital

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nompumelelo E. Mlambo ◽  
Nondumiso N.M. Dlamini ◽  
Ronald J. Urry
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
South African ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Vascular Invasion ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Renal Masses ◽  
Cross Sectional

Background: The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing globally owing to the increased use of cross-sectional imaging. Computed tomography (CT) scan is the modality of choice in the diagnosis and pre-operative assessment of RCC. Nephrectomy is the standard treatment for RCC and pre-surgery biopsy is not routinely practised. The accuracy of CT diagnosis and staging in a South African population has not been established.Objectives: To determine the accuracy of CT scan in the diagnosis and pre-operative staging of RCC at Grey’s Hospital.Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed; CT scan reports and histopathological results of adult patients who underwent nephrectomy for presumed RCC on CT scan between January 2010 and December 2016 were compared.Results: Fifty patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. CT significantly overestimated the size of renal masses by 0.7 cm (p = 0.045) on average. The positive predictive value of CT for RCC was 81%. Cystic tumours and those 4 cm and smaller were more likely to be benign. CT demonstrated good specificity for extra-renal extension, vascular invasion and lymph node involvement, but poor sensitivity.Conclusion: In our South African study population, CT is accurate at diagnosing RCC, but false-positives do occur. Non-enhancing or poorly enhancing, cystic, fat-containing and small lesions (4 cm or smaller) are more likely to be benign and ultrasound-guided biopsy should be considered to avoid unnecessary surgery. CT assessment of extra-renal extension and vascular invasion is challenging and additional imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) venogram, duplex Doppler ultrasound or Positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) may be beneficial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document