4.4 Article

cMET: a prognostic marker in papillary renal cell carcinoma?

Journal

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
Volume 121, Issue -, Pages 1-10

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2021.12.007

Keywords

cMET; Papillary renal cell carcinoma; Prognosis; Survival; Outcome

Categories

Funding

  1. Ferdinand Eisenberger grant of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Urologie (German Society of Urology) [StS1/FE-13]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [ER 795/1-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the expression of c-Met in papillary RCC and its association with prognosis, and the results showed that c-Met expression is not a prognostic marker for overall survival in pRCC.
The tyrosine-protein kinase c-Met plays a decisive role in numerous cellular processes, as a proto-oncogene that supports aggressive tumor behavior. It is still unknown whether c-Met could be relevant for prognosis of papillary RCC (pRCC). Specimen collection was a collaboration of the PAN-ZAR consortium. Patients' medical history and tumor specimens were collected from 197 and 110 patients with type 1 and 2 pRCC, respectively. Expression of cMET was determined by immunohistochemistry. In total, cMET staining was evaluable in of 97 of 197 type 1 and 63 of 110 type 2 pRCC cases. Five-year overall survival revealed no significant difference in dependence of cMET positivity (cMET(-) vs. cMET(+): pRCC type 1: 84.8% vs. 80.3%, respectively [p = 0.303, log-rank]; type 2: 71.4% vs. 64.4%, respectively [p = 0.239, log-rank]). Interestingly, the subgroup analyses showed a significant difference for cMET expression in T stage and metastases of the pRCC type 2 (p = 0.014, p = 0.022, chi-square). The cMET-positive type 2 collective developed more metastases than the cMET-negative cohort (pRCC type 2 M+: cMET 2 [4.3%] vs. cMET(+): 12 [19%]). cMET expression did not qualify as a prognostic marker in pRCC for overall survival. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available