Meaghan L Barr1, Lucia B Jilaveanu1, Robert L Camp2, Adebowale J Adeniran2, Harriet M Kluger1, Brian Shuch3. 1. Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Immunohistochemical stains have greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) for primary and distant tumours. We evaluate a marker that has recently been incorporated in clinical practice, PAX-8, in primary and metastatic RCCs. METHODS: Two distinct tissue microarrays were used, one consisting of over 334 renal tumours, 294 with adjacent normal kidney and the other with 40 matched nephrectomy and metastatic sites of RCC. PAX-8 expression was assessed by a method of quantitative immunofluorescence. RESULTS: PAX-8 was positive in 96% (146/152) of normal renal tissue and 83% (227/272) of renal tumours. PAX-8 staining was positive in clear cell, papillary and chromophobe tumours in 80% (165/207), 95% (39/41) and 100% (6/6) of samples, respectively. Overall, intensity of PAX-8 expression was significantly higher in RCC metastatic sites than in the primary site (p=0.0047), however, in matched sites there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of positive versus negative specimens (p=0.274). CONCLUSIONS: As the role of molecular markers expands in the diagnostic algorithm, this study confirms that PAX-8 expression is a useful diagnostic marker for RCC. PAX-8 expression was found in the primary tumour and distant sites. Compared with normal tissue and other histological types, clear cell RCC has lower PAX-8 expression and is less frequently positive, therefore, the lack of expression does not exclude a tumour of renal origin. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
AIMS: Immunohistochemical stains have greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) for primary and distant tumours. We evaluate a marker that has recently been incorporated in clinical practice, PAX-8, in primary and metastatic RCCs. METHODS: Two distinct tissue microarrays were used, one consisting of over 334 renal tumours, 294 with adjacent normal kidney and the other with 40 matched nephrectomy and metastatic sites of RCC. PAX-8 expression was assessed by a method of quantitative immunofluorescence. RESULTS:PAX-8 was positive in 96% (146/152) of normal renal tissue and 83% (227/272) of renal tumours. PAX-8 staining was positive in clear cell, papillary and chromophobe tumours in 80% (165/207), 95% (39/41) and 100% (6/6) of samples, respectively. Overall, intensity of PAX-8 expression was significantly higher in RCC metastatic sites than in the primary site (p=0.0047), however, in matched sites there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of positive versus negative specimens (p=0.274). CONCLUSIONS: As the role of molecular markers expands in the diagnostic algorithm, this study confirms that PAX-8 expression is a useful diagnostic marker for RCC. PAX-8 expression was found in the primary tumour and distant sites. Compared with normal tissue and other histological types, clear cell RCC has lower PAX-8 expression and is less frequently positive, therefore, the lack of expression does not exclude a tumour of renal origin. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Erin M Carney; Priya Banerjee; Carla L Ellis; Roula Albadine; Rajni Sharma; Alcides M Chaux; Peter C Burger; George J Netto Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Ricardo F Sánchez-Ortiz; Lydia T Madsen; Carlos E Bermejo; Sijin Wen; Yu Shen; David A Swanson; Christopher G Wood Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Poleev; H Fickenscher; S Mundlos; A Winterpacht; B Zabel; A Fidler; P Gruss; D Plachov Journal: Development Date: 1992-11 Impact factor: 6.868
Authors: Saadia A Aziz; Joshua Sznol; Adebowale Adeniran; John W Colberg; Robert L Camp; Harriet M Kluger Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Yi-Feng Gu; Shannon Cohn; Alana Christie; Tiffani McKenzie; Nicholas Wolff; Quyen N Do; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Ivan Pedrosa; Tao Wang; Anwesha Dey; Meinrad Busslinger; Xian-Jin Xie; Robert E Hammer; Renée M McKay; Payal Kapur; James Brugarolas Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Aditi Bagchi; Zachary Madaj; Kelly B Engel; Ping Guan; Daniel C Rohrer; Dana R Valley; Emily Wolfrum; Kristin Feenstra; Nancy Roche; Galen Hostetter; Helen M Moore; Scott D Jewell Journal: J Histochem Cytochem Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.479