AIMS: To assess whether heterogeneity of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) immunoreactivity in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is related to non-standardised criteria for staining evaluation. METHODS: EGFR expression was investigated in 132 primary and 55 metastatic conventional RCCs using a tissue microarray technique. RESULTS: Overall, membranous and/or cytoplasmic EGFR immunostaining was present in 123 of 132 (93%) primary and 49 of 53 (92%) metastatic RCCs, with extensive immunoreactivity (> 50% of tumour cells) in 110 of 132 (83%) primary tumours and 39 of 53 (73%) metastases. Cytoplasmic staining was associated with high tumour stage and high tumour grade. In addition, strong membranous staining (score 3+) prevailed in high grade RCCs. Cytoplasmic immunostaining was associated with an unfavourable prognosis, whereas overall (cytoplasmic and membranous) immunoreactivity and intensity of membranous staining were not. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods of immunohistochemical evaluation led to different results, strengthening the need for standardisation, especially against a background of rapidly evolving EGFR targeted cancer treatment strategies.
AIMS: To assess whether heterogeneity of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) immunoreactivity in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is related to non-standardised criteria for staining evaluation. METHODS:EGFR expression was investigated in 132 primary and 55 metastatic conventional RCCs using a tissue microarray technique. RESULTS: Overall, membranous and/or cytoplasmic EGFR immunostaining was present in 123 of 132 (93%) primary and 49 of 53 (92%) metastatic RCCs, with extensive immunoreactivity (> 50% of tumour cells) in 110 of 132 (83%) primary tumours and 39 of 53 (73%) metastases. Cytoplasmic staining was associated with high tumour stage and high tumour grade. In addition, strong membranous staining (score 3+) prevailed in high grade RCCs. Cytoplasmic immunostaining was associated with an unfavourable prognosis, whereas overall (cytoplasmic and membranous) immunoreactivity and intensity of membranous staining were not. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods of immunohistochemical evaluation led to different results, strengthening the need for standardisation, especially against a background of rapidly evolving EGFR targeted cancer treatment strategies.
Authors: D L Uhlman; P Nguyen; J C Manivel; G Zhang; K Hagen; E Fraley; D Aeppli; G A Niehans Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: J Kononen; L Bubendorf; A Kallioniemi; M Bärlund; P Schraml; S Leighton; J Torhorst; M J Mihatsch; G Sauter; O P Kallioniemi Journal: Nat Med Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: H Moch; G Sauter; T C Gasser; L Bubendorf; J Richter; J C Presti; F M Waldman; M J Mihatsch Journal: J Pathol Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: J P Kallio; P Hirvikoski; H Helin; P Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; T Luukkaala; T L J Tammela; P M Martikainen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-10-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Derek Shek; Jeff Longmate; David I Quinn; Kim A Margolin; Przemyslaw Twardowski; David R Gandara; Paul Frankel; Chong-Xian Pan; Primo N Lara Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: K Matušan-Ilijaš; G Damante; D Fabbro; G Dorđević; I Hadžisejdić; M Grahovac; M Avirović; B Grahovac; N Jonjić; K Lučin Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: V Medina Villaamil; G Aparicio Gallego; M Valladares-Ayerbes; I Santamarina Caínzos; L Miguel Antón Aparicio Journal: J Mol Signal Date: 2012-09-01