4.4 Article

Loss of PBRMI and BAP1 expression is less common in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma than in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.10.014

关键词

BRCA1-associated protein-1; Renal cell carcinoma; Polybromo-1 Papillary

资金

  1. Gloria A. and Thomas J. Dutson, Jr. Kidney Research Endowment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recurrent mutations in polybromo-1 (PBRM1, similar to 40%) and BRCAl-associated protein-1 (BAP1, similar to 10%) occur in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), but their prevalence in non-ccRCC or renal oncocytoma (RO) is unknown. We evaluated loss of PBRM1 and BAP1 staining in ccRCC, papillary RCC (pRCC), chromophobe RCC (chRCC), and RO tumors using an immunohistochemistry assay in which negative staining was associated with loss-of-function mutations. Methods: We identified 458 patients treated surgically for ccRCC, pRCC, chRCC, and RO between 2004 and 2012. We performed immunohistochemistry assays to evaluate PBRM1 and BAP1 protein expression to classify tumors as PBRM1 or BAP1 negative. We compared loss of staining of these 2 proteins in ccRCC and non-ccRCC using the Fisher exact test. Results: For the total cohort of 458 patients, we successfully stained both PBRM1 and BAP1 in 408 tumor samples. Consistent with the mutation rate, loss of PBRM1 and BAP1 staining occurred in 43% (80/187) and 10% (18/187) of ccRCC cases, respectively. However, loss of PBRM1 staining occurred in only 3% (2/59), 6% (1/17). and 0% (0/34) of pRCC, chRCC, and RO tumors, respectively (P < 0.0001). BAP1 loss was not observed in any of the pRCC (n = 61), chRCC (n = 17). or RO (n = 34) tumors, (P = 0.00021). Conclusion: Our data suggest that Natick inactivation of PBRM1 or BAP] is less common in non-ccRCC when compared with ccRCC tumors. These findings suggest that loss of PBRM1 or BAP1 are key events in ccRCC, whereas other pathways may support nimorigenesis in non-ccRCC subtypes. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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