4.7 Article

Adult Xp11 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma Diagnosed by Cytogenetics and Immunohistochemistry

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 1170-1176

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1183

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the incidence of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in adult patients using cytogenetics and immunohistochemistry. Experimental Design: Cytogenetic studies were prospectively done using tumor samples from 443 consecutive adult Japanese patients (ages 15-89 years) who underwent nephrectomy for RCC. TFE3 immunohistochemistry was done for cases in which cytogenetic results were not obtained. Clinicopathologic characteristics of Xp11 translocation RCC were examined. Results: Mitotic cells suitable for cytogenetic analysis were obtained in 244 tumor samples (55%); among these, we identified 4 cases (1.6%) of Xp11 translocation RCC. TFE3 immunohistochemistry identified 3 positive cases (1.5%) among the remaining 199 cases. The median age of the 7 patients was 41 years (range, 15-59 years), and 15% of RCC patients (4 of 26) who were younger than ages 45 years had this type of RCC. Of the four Xp11 translocation RCC patients whose karyotypes were determined, two had an ASPL-TFE3 gene fusion. Of these 2, 1 had pulmonary metastasis at presentation, and the other developed liver metastasis 12 months after nephrectomy and died of the disease. The remaining two patients had PRCC-TFE3 and PSF-TFE3 gene fusions, respectively. Both had nodal involvement but remained disease free for 3 and 5 years, respectively, after surgical resection of lymph node metastases. Of the 3 immunohistochemically diagnosed patients, 1 had nodal metastases at presentation and died 9 months after surgery. Conclusions: This is the first report to determine the incidence of Xp11 translocation RCC in adult patients. We found that this disease is relatively common in young adults.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available