Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UNIPROT:P10721 (c-kit)
 6,575 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) harbor various TFE3 gene fusions, and are known to underexpress epithelial immunohistochemical (IHC) markers such as cytokeratin and EMA relative to usual adult type RCC; however, their profile in reference to other IHC markers that are differentially expressed in other subtypes of RCC has not been systematically assessed. Few therapeutic targets have been identified in these aggressive cancers. We created 2 tissue microarrays (TMA) containing five 1.4-mm cores from each of 21 Xp11 translocation RCC (all confirmed by TFE3 IHC, 6 further confirmed by genetics), 7 clear cell RCC (CCRCC), and 6 papillary RCC (PRCC). These TMA were labeled for a panel of IHC markers. In contrast to earlier published data, Xp11 translocation RCC frequently expressed renal transcription factors PAX8 (16/21 cases) and PAX2 (14/21 cases), whereas only 1 of 21 cases focally expressed MiTF and only 5 of 21 overexpressed p21. Although experimental data suggest otherwise, Xp11 translocation RCC did not express WT-1 (0/21 cases). Although 24% of Xp11 translocation RCC expressed HIF-1alpha (like CCRCC), unlike CCRCC CA IX expression was characteristically only focal (mean 6% cell labeling) in Xp11 translocation RCC. Other markers preferentially expressed in CCRCC or PRCC, such as HIG-2, claudin 7, and EpCAM, yielded inconsistent results in Xp11 translocation RCC. Xp11 translocation RCC infrequently expressed Ksp-cadherin (3/21 cases) and c-kit (0/21 cases), markers frequently expressed in chromophobe RCC. Using an H-score that is the product of intensity and percentage labeling, Xp11 translocation RCC expressed higher levels of phosphorylated S6, a measure of mTOR pathway activation (mean H score=88), than did CCRCC (mean H score=54) or PRCC (mean H score=44). In conclusion, in contrast to prior reports, Xp11 translocation RCC usually express PAX2 and PAX8 but do not usually express MiTF. Although they may express HIF-1alpha, they only focally express the downstream target CA IX. They inconsistently express markers associated with other RCC subtypes, further highlighting the lack of specificity of the latter markers. TFE3 and Cathepsin K remain the most sensitive and specific markers of these neoplasms. Elevated expression of phosphorylated S6 in Xp11 translocation RCC suggests the mTOR pathway as an attractive potential therapeutic target for these neoplasms.
 ...
PMID:Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC): extended immunohistochemical profile emphasizing novel RCC markers. 2067 84

A cohort of a heretofore not described rare subtype of renal oncocytoma, small cell oncocytoma with pseudorosettes is presented. Patients were 6 women and 4 men with ages ranging from 51 to 76 years. The tumors displayed areas composed of small cells ("oncoblasts") featuring scant cytoplasm and small, round monomorphic nuclei. The small cell areas constituted 15% to 60% of the total tumor volume (mean, 28.5%; median, 22.5%). No necrosis or mitotic activity was discerned. All tumors also contained areas composed of characteristic oncocytes comprising 40% to 85% of the total tumor volume. In all cases, a varying number of pseudorosettes were identified. The pseudorosettes were composed of small globules of (periodic acid-Schiff-positive) hyaline basal membrane-like material surrounded by small "oncoblastic" cells. The immunohistochemical profile was variable, including at least focal positivity for AE1-3 (10/10), cytokeratin 7 (7/10), epithelial membrane antigen (10/10), c-kit (6/10), antimitochondrial antigen (MIA;10/10), PAX-2 (9/10), AMACR (racemase;6/10), CD10 (5/10), parvalbumin (8/10), vimentin (6/10), claudin 7 (10/10), and claudin 8 (3/10). No immunoreactivity for carbonic anhydrase 9, HMB-45, S-100A1, and TFE3 was documented. We found no differences in the immunophenotype in the small cell oncocytes/oncoblasts that formed pseudorosettes and those that did not. However, there were differences in the immunohistochemical profile of classic oncocytes and small cell oncocytes/oncoblasts. Using array comparative genomic hybridization, no chromosomal changes were identified in any of the cases examined (n = 3). No numerical changes of chromosomes 7 and 17 were revealed on fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis (n = 3). In conclusion, we herein present the first study on small cell renal oncocytomas with formation of pseudorosettes. This is a rare subtype of oncocytoma, which may, especially on a core biopsy, present differential diagnostic difficulties. The immunohistochemical profile of these tumors is variable and differs in significant respects from that of conventional renal oncocytoma. Awareness of this entity and its immunohistochemical variability should help in distinguishing this rare tumor from malignant tumors with similar (small cell) histomorphologic features. All tumors behaved in a benign fashion during follow-up (mean, 3.1 years; median, 1 year).
 ...
PMID:Renal small cell oncocytoma with pseudorosettes A histomorphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 10 cases. 2165 56