| Literature DB >> 35869040 |
Shinichiro Higashi1, Takeshi Sasaki1, Katsunori Uchida2, Takumi Kageyama1, Makoto Ikejiri3, Ryuki Matsumoto1, Manabu Kato1, Satoru Masui1, Yuko Yoshio1, Kouhei Nishikawa1, Yoshinaga Okugawa4, Masatoshi Watanabe2, Takahiro Inoue5.
Abstract
Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a rare renal cancer. A 75-year-old Japanese female presented with gross hematuria. Computed tomography revealed two tumors in the left kidney, which were resected. Immunohistochemistry indicated negative staining for the B subunit of SDH (SDHB) in the resected specimen, leading to a final diagnosis of SDHB-deficient RCC. Genetic testing for SDHB showed a RCC germline variant in exon 6 (NM_003000.3:c.642 G > C) that was previously reported but associated with a novel phenotype (i.e., RCC). Twenty-six years prior, her daughter, who was 25 years old at the time, had undergone radical nephrectomy for a pathologic diagnosis of renal oncocytoma of the right kidney; SDHB immunostaining of her daughter's tumor was also negative retrospectively. We confirmed that her daughter carried the germline variant in SDHB exon 6, similar to the patient. The patient had no evidence of disease progression at 15 months after surgery.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35869040 PMCID: PMC9307839 DOI: 10.1038/s41439-022-00202-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Genome Var ISSN: 2054-345X
Fig. 1Abdominal computed tomography, gross appearance, and microscopic findings.
Enhanced computed tomography (CT) showing an enlarged 3.8 × 2.8 cm tumor in the upper pole region of the left kidney and a 1.2 × 1.1 cm (arrow) (A) tumor in the lower pole region of the left kidney (arrow) (B). The tumors were well circumscribed with tan-brown (A) and reddish-brown (B) cut surfaces. Histopathological examination revealed SDH-deficient RCC with Fuhrman grade 2/International Society of Urological Pathology grade 2 (C). Cells were intermediate to large in size with cytoplasmic vacuoles containing eosinophilic fluid. Nuclei were round with prominent nucleoli, and apparent perinuclear halos were absent. Immunostaining for SDHB was negative but positive for scattered inflammatory cells (C). Immunostaining for SDHA was positive (C). Histopathology of the daughter’s tumors showed eosinophils and oncocytes with multiple cytoplasmic vacuoles and negative immunostaining for SDHB (D) (bar = 50 µm).
Fig. 2PCR-directed sequencing of SDHB exon 6.
DNA from the patient’s tumor tissue showed a variant in RCC (NM_003000.3:c.642 G > C) (arrow) previously reported but associated with a novel phenotype (RCC) (A). DNA from the patient’s normal tissue and blood sample showed the same variant (NM_003000.3:c.642 G > C) (arrow) (B and C). DNA from the daughter’s blood sample showed the same variant (NM_003000.3:c.642 G > C) (arrow) (D). Effect of the SDHB variant (NM_003000.3:c.642 G > C) on splicing by RNA analysis. Forward sequence data of cloned RT–PCR products revealed that the 3′ splice site of SDHB exon 6 was not recognized, with aberrant transcription continuing into intron 6 (E). Reverse sequence data of cloned RT–PCR products revealed the presence of 132 base pairs of intronic sequences adjacent to exon 7, indicating intron 6 retention (F). The intronic sequence included a stop codon (TAG) (F). The SDHB variant (NM_003000.3:c.642 G > C) results in usage of the intronic splice site, leading to the inclusion of an intron fragment (132 base pairs) (NM_003000.3: r.[642 g > c;642_643ins642 + 1_642 + 132]) including a stop codon (TAG) (G), which may be a protein-truncating variant (NM_003000.3:p.Gln214delinsHisValArgCysSerLeuIleAlaLeuArgGluIleGluThrGlnAlaSerArgSerProArgGlyGlnTer).