4.5 Review

Clear cell sarcoma of the kidney - A review of 351 cases from the National Wilms Tumor Study Group Pathology Center

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 4-18

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200001000-00002

关键词

clear cell sarcoma; kidney; childhood cancer

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-42386] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We reviewed 351 cases of clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK), including 182 cases entered on National Wilms Tumor Study Group (NWTSG) trials 1-4 for which clinical follow-up information was available. Tumors were restaged using NWTS 5 criteria. Mean age at diagnosis in the NWTS group was 36 months with a range of 2 months to 14 years. The male to female ratio was 2:1. Typical gross features included large size (mean diameter 11.3 cm), a mucoid texture, foci of necrosis, and prominent cyst formation. Nine major histologic patterns were identified (classic, myxoid, sclerosing, cellular, epithelioid, palisading, spindle, storiform, and anaplastic); virtually all tumors contained multiple patterns that blended with one another. Immunohistochemical stains were performed on 45 cases; only vimentin was consistently immunoreactive, Consistently negative results with other antibodies helped exclude other tumors in the differential diagnosis; all CCSKs were cytokeratin-negative, including epithelioid tumors that mimicked Wilms tumor, and MIC2-negative, including cellular tumors that mimicked primitive neuroectodermal tumor. The p53 gene product was rarely overexpressed in non-anaplastic CCSKs, but strikingly overexpressed in two of three anaplastic CCSKs. Overall survival was 69%. Multivariate analysis revealed four independent prognostic factors for survival: treatment with doxorubicin, stage, age at diagnosis, and tumor necrosis, Of note, stage 1 patients had a remarkable 98% survival rate. No other histologic or clinical variable independently correlated with survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据