PAX-2 Is a Helpful Marker for Diagnosing Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Comparison With the Renal Cell Carcinoma Marker Antigen and Kidney-Specific Cadherin

2010 ◽  
Vol 134 (8) ◽  
pp. 1121-1129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayhan Ozcan ◽  
Qihui Zhai ◽  
Rehana Javed ◽  
Steven S. Shen ◽  
Donna Coffey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Collecting Duct ◽  
Metastatic Tumors ◽  
Positive Immunoreactivity ◽  
Marker Antigen ◽  
Metastatic Rcc

Abstract Context.—The diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains problematic. Objective.—To evaluate the role of PAX-2, a renal tubular cell transcription factor, in the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. PAX-2 expression in metastatic RCC was compared with that of the renal cell carcinoma marker antigen (RCCM) and kidney-specific cadherin (KSC), which are 2 known markers for RCC. Design.—Immunostaining for PAX-2, RCCM, and KSC was performed on consecutive tissue sections of 95 metastatic RCCs (77 clear cell, 8 papillary, 5 sarcomatoid, and 5 collecting duct) and 183 metastatic tumors other than RCC. Results.—For PAX-2, positive immunoreactivity was detected in 77% clear cell, 75% papillary, 100% collecting duct, and 0% sarcomatoid metastatic RCCs. For RCCM, positive immunoreactivity was detected in 49% clear cell, 75% papillary, 0% collecting duct, and 0% sarcomatoid metastatic RCCs. For KSC, only 2 metastatic clear cell RCCs (3%) were positive. In combination, all markers were positive in 0% of cases; all markers were negative in 23% of cases (17 clear cell, 1 papillary, and for all 5 sarcomatoid); and at least 1 marker was positive in 76% of cases (PAX-2 only in 28% of cases [21 clear cell, 1 papillary, and 5 collecting duct] and RCCM only in 3% of cases [2 clear, 1 papillary]). Of 183 metastatic tumors other than RCC, 14 were positive for PAX-2 (nodal metastasis of carcinoma of colon [1], breast [1], endometrium [1], and ovary [1]; and omental metastasis of carcinoma of uterus or ovary [10]). Conclusions.—PAX-2 is a sensitive and specific marker for metastatic RCC. The diagnostic yield would be marginally increased by adding RCCM, but not KSC, as an immunomarker.

Treatment Outcome and Survival Associated With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma of Non–Clear-Cell Histology

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 2376-2381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Jennifer Bacik ◽  
Tania Mariani ◽  
Paul Russo ◽  
Madhu Mazumdar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Collecting Duct ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Clear Cell Rcc

PURPOSE: To define outcome data for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with histology other than clear-cell type, including collecting duct (or medullary carcinoma), papillary, chromophobe, and unclassified histologies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients with metastatic non–clear-cell RCC histology were the subjects of this retrospective review. Included in the analysis were 22 (8%) of 286 patients from a clinical trials database, 19 of 1,166 patients from a surgery database, and 23 of 357 patients from a pathology database. RESULTS: The prevalent histology was collecting duct, present in 26 (41%) patients. The number of patients with chromophobe and papillary histologies was 12 (19%) and 18 (28%), respectively. Eight (12%) of the patients had tumors that could not be classified for specific tumor histology. Among the 43 patients treated with 86 systemic therapies, including 37 cytokine therapies, two patients (5%) were observed to have a partial response. The median overall survival time was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 8 to 14 months). The survival was longer for patients with chromophobe tumors compared with collecting duct or papillary histology, and this group included four patients with survival of greater than 3 years. CONCLUSION: RCC consists of a heterogeneous group of tumors including clear-cell, papillary, chromophobe, collecting duct, and unclassified cell types. Non–clear-cell histologies constitute less than 10% of patients in general populations of patients with advanced RCC treated on clinical trials. Metastatic non–clear-cell RCC is characterized by a resistance to systemic therapy and poor survival, with the survival for patients with chromophobe tumors longer than that for patients with metastatic collecting duct or papillary RCC. Treatment with novel agents on clinical trials is warranted.

scholarly journals Unusual presentation of renal cell carcinoma: A rare case report

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 241-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manjari Kishore ◽  
Devender Singh Chauhan ◽  
Shruti Dogra
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Clear Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Upper Lip ◽  
Rare Case Report ◽  
Aggressive Tumor ◽  
Oral Tumors ◽  
Metastatic Rcc

AbstractCutaneous and intraoral metastasis from any malignancy is not common. Cutaneous spread is usually noted in 5%–10% of high-grade malignancies, as in carcinoma breast, lung, colon, ovary, and malignant melanoma. Only 4.6% cases of cutaneous spread are from renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Intraoral spread from RCC is much rarer with an incidence of approximately 1% of all malignant oral tumors, noted sometimes in tongue, palate, buccal mucosa, gingiva, and lips. RCC is a highly aggressive tumor which requires early diagnosis for increasing the chance of cure. In our case, a 54-year-old male presented with swelling over upper lip, scalp, and retromolar area, which on histopathology and immunohistochemistry revealed clear cell carcinoma compatible with metastatic RCC.

scholarly journals Comprehensive Immunoprofiles of Renal Cell Carcinoma Subtypes

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moonsik Kim ◽  
Jin Woo Joo ◽  
Seok Joo Lee ◽  
Yoon Ah Cho ◽  
Cheol Keun Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Collecting Duct ◽  
Cathepsin K ◽  
Renal Tumors ◽  
Duct Carcinoma ◽  
Epithelial Tumors ◽  
Papillary Type

In recent years, renal epithelial tumors have been among the fastest reclassifying tumors, requiring updates to the tumor classification system. Nonetheless, immunohistochemistry (IHC) remains the most widely used tool for renal epithelial tumors. In this proposal, we aimed to create the most efficient IHC panel for categorizing the diverse subtypes of renal tumors, and to find out more specific immunohistochemical results in each subtype or each antibody. A total of 214 renal tumors were analyzed using 10 possible IHC markers to differentiate subtypes, including three major renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes, clear-cell type (50 cases), papillary type (50 cases), and chromophobe type (20 cases), and minor subtypes (MiT RCC, 13 cases; collecting duct carcinoma, 5 cases; and oncocytoma, 10 cases). A triple immunomarker (cytokeratin 7 (CK7)-carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX)- alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR)) panel is useful in particular high-grade clear-cell tumors. If IHC remains ambiguous, the use of an adjunctive panel can be suggested, including CD10, epithelial membrane antigen, cathepsin K, c-kit, hepatocyte nuclear factor 1-β, and E-cadherin. For an efficient immunohistochemical strategy for subtyping of RCC, we conclude that the CK7-CAIX-AMACR panel is the best primary choice for screening subtyping.

Medical Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

1980 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umberto Tirelli ◽  
Sergio Frustaci ◽  
Enzo Galligioni ◽  
Andrea Veronesi ◽  
Mauro G. Trovò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Treatment Agent ◽  
Metastatic Rcc

Thirty five patients with metastatic RCC were observed over a 57 months period in our Division of Radiotherapy and Medical Oncology, and 30 are evaluable for this analysis. MPA was selected as primary treatment agent in 23 patients, VLB singly, in combination with MPA or in combination with CCNU was used in 1.4 and 2 patients. With MPA the TR rate was 3/23 (1 CR and 2 PR). Duration of response for the patient with CR was 6 months whereas for the patients with PR was 21 and 14 months respectively. 4 additional patients showed NC. With VLB-MPA the TR rate was 1/4 (1 PR). Duration of PR was 3 months. The median duration of survival for the 11 patients with CR, PR and NC was 14 months whereas for the 19 patients with NR was 7 months (p < 0.01). TES and TAM showed no or minimal activity as second treatment agents.

Histopathology in surgically treated renal cell carcinoma: Is there a survival difference when stratified by stage?

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5089-5089
Author(s):  
K. A. Keegan ◽  
N. J. Hellenthal ◽  
K. Chamie ◽  
T. M. Koppie
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Collecting Duct ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Stage Disease ◽  
The Impact

5089 Background: The impact of renal cell carcinoma histopathology (RCC) on survival has been conflicting and limited to retrospective institutional studies. Therefore, we sought to determine the role of RCC histopathology on stage-specific survival rates in a population-based cohort. Methods: We utilized the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and identified 21,258 patients who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy for RCC between 1996 and 2004. Patients were stratified based on histopathologic diagnosis (clear cell, papillary, chromophobe, sarcomatoid, and collecting duct) and pathologic stage. We performed Cox-proportional hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to determine overall- and cancer-specific survival. Results: Using univariate analysis, histopathology significantly impacted overall- and cancer-specific survival (p< 0.001). Specifically, patients with papillary and chromophobe variants had lower stage disease at the time of surgery and had improved survival compared to clear cell subtypes, (HR: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.42–0.60 and HR: 0.31; 95% CI, 0.22–0.44, respectively). When controlled for stage, improved outcomes for chromophobe and papillary histologies persisted, although it did not achieve statistical significance at all stages. On the other hand, patients with sarcomatoid disease were more likely to present with high stage disease and invariably had worse survival compared to clear cell carcinoma (HR: 8.74; 95%, CI 7.70–9.91). When controlled for stage, this difference achieved statistical significance across all stages (p< 0.001). Conclusions: Histopathologic subtype in patients with RCC does predict overall- and cancer-specific survival. Patients with sarcomatoid RCC, even those presenting with low-stage disease, have poor survival. These findings may give further value to recent data suggesting the increased utility of percutaneous renal biopsy and its potential impact on management. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Results of a phase II study of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid differentiation (sccRCC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 548-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rana R. McKay ◽  
Bradley Alexander McGregor ◽  
Kathryn Gray ◽  
John A. Steinharter ◽  
Meghara K. Walsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Collecting Duct ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Histologic Subtype ◽  
Sarcomatoid Differentiation

548 Background: NccRCC and sccRCC have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials. Even with targeted therapy, most patients have inferior survival compared to clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has demonstrated safety and efficacy in ccRCC. In this multicenter, phase II, open-label, single arm trial we evaluate the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients with nccRCC and sccRCC with >20% sarcomatoid differentiation. Methods: Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 and may have received prior therapy. Prior PD-1/PD-L1 therapy was not allowed. Patients underwent a mandatory baseline biopsy and subsequently received atezolizumab 120 mg and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. Patients remained on therapy until radiographic progression, unacceptable adverse events, or withdrawal. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) as determined by RECIST version 1.1. Results: 65 patients were enrolled of whom 52 had ≥1 response assessment and were included in this analysis. 36 patients had nccRCC (papillary n=14, chromophobe n=8, unclassified RCC n=3, collecting duct n=3, translocation n=3, other n=5), and 16 patients had sccRCC. 17 patients received prior systemic therapy, 16 of whom had nccRCC. The ORR was 31% in the overall cohort (Table 1). 10 patients (19%) developed grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs), half of which were immune-related. There were no grade 4-5 AEs. Conclusions: In this study, we show that therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab was safe and demonstrated anti-tumor activity in nccRCC and sccRCC. Further analyses will report ORR by histologic subtype and PD-L1 expression status. Analysis of tissue and blood-based biomarkers of response are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02724878. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document