Utility of immunohistochemical analysis of KAI1, epithelial-specific antigen, and epithelial-related antigen for distinction of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, an eosinophilic variant from renal oncocytoma

被引:0
作者
Chisato Ohe
Naoto Kuroda
Kosho Takasu
Hideto Senzaki
Nobuaki Shikata
Tadanori Yamaguchi
Chika Miyasaka
Yorika Nakano
Noriko Sakaida
Yoshiko Uemura
机构
[1] Kansai Medical University,Department of Pathology
[2] Hirakata Hospital,Department of Diagnostic Pathology
[3] Kochi Red Cross Hospital,Department of Pathology
[4] Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki Hospital,Department of Pathology
[5] Saiseikai Nakatsu Hospital,Department of Pathology
[6] Kansai Medical University,Department of Cytopathology
[7] Takii Hospital,undefined
[8] Ayabe City Hospital,undefined
来源
Medical Molecular Morphology | 2012年 / 45卷
关键词
Immunohistochemistry; Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma; Renal oncocytoma; KAI1; Epithelialspecific antigen; Epithelial-related antigen;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Distinction of renal oncocytoma (RO) from chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) is important because their clinical behavior is different. As part of a search for the best available immunohistochemical markers to distinguish ChRCC from RO, we investigated the immunohistochemical profiles of these tumors. We selected 30 renal tumors consisting of ChRCC, typical variant (n = 14), ChRCC, eosinophilic variant (n = 6), and RO (n = 10). Their expression of cytokeratin (CK) 7, KAI1, epithelial-specific antigen (ESA), epithelial-related antigen (ERA), Claudin- 7, and Claudin-8 was studied using an autostainer. Immunoreactivity was assessed based on a combined score of the extent and intensity of staining. Compared to RO, a significantly higher percentage of the total ChRCCs stained positive for CK7 (85% vs. 10%, respectively), KAI1 (90% vs. 10%), ESA (95% vs. 10%), ERA (95% vs. 10%), and Claudin-7 (95% vs. 20%) (P < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant difference between the percentage of ChRCC eosinophilic variant (ChRCC-E) and RO that stained positive for KAI1 (100% vs. 10%, respectively), ESA (83% vs. 10%), and ERA (83% vs. 10%) (P < 0.001). We recommend immunohistochemical analysis of KAI1, ESA, and ERA to distinguish ChRCC-E from RO.
引用
收藏
页码:98 / 104
页数:6
相关论文
共 127 条
[1]  
Thoenes W.(1988)Chromophobe cell renal carcinoma and its variants: a report on 32 cases J Pathol 155 277-287
[2]  
Störkel S.(2003)Review of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with focus on clinical and pathobiological aspects Histol Histopathol 18 165-171
[3]  
Rumpelt H.J.(2005)Expression of kidney-specific cadherin distinguishes chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma Hum Pathol 36 22-28
[4]  
Moll R.(2007)Immunohistochemical analysis for cytokeratin 7, KIT, and PAX2: value in the differential diagnosis of chromophobe cell carcinoma Am J Clin Pathol 1272 225-229
[5]  
Baum H.P.(2007)Immunohistochemical analysis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, renal oncocytoma, and clear cell carcinoma: an optimal and practical panel for differential diagnosis Arch Pathol Lab Med 1318 1290-1297
[6]  
Werner S.(2009)Immunohistochemical stain for cytokeratin 7, S100A1 and claudin 8 is valuable in differential diagnosis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma Histopathology (Oxf) 54 633-635
[7]  
Kuroda N.(2002)Cytokeratin 7: a useful adjunct in the diagnosis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma Histopathology (Oxf) 40 563-567
[8]  
Toi M.(2009)Differential expression of KAI1 metastasis suppressor protein in renal cell tumor histological subtypes J Urol 181 2305-2311
[9]  
Hiroi H.(2009)Identifying CD82 (KAI1) as a marker for human chromophobe renal cell carcinoma Histopathology (Oxf) 55 687-695
[10]  
Enzan P.R.(2005)Expression of epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCam) in renal epithelial tumors Am J Surg Pathol 29 83-88