3.9 Article

Validation of a TFE3 Break-apart FISH Assay for Xp11.2 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas

期刊

DIAGNOSTIC MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 129-137

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PDM.0b013e31820e9c67

关键词

renal cell carcinoma; Xp11.2; translocation; TFE3; fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH); immunohistochemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) with an Xp11.2 translocation predominantly affect young patients, and can present at an advanced stage. However, more cases in older patients and incidentally detected cancers at earlier stages are also being identified. As the histology of Xp11.2 RCCs overlaps with clear cell and papillary RCCs, it is not infrequent that Xp11.2 RCCs are overlooked and misdiagnosed. The objective of this study was to validate the use of fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) for identifying Xp11.2 RCCs. One hundred fifty-eight consecutive, unselected renal tumors were evaluated in tissue microarrays, including 109 clear cell RCCs, 20 papillary RCCs, 3 RCCs with mixed papillary and clear cell features, 1 Xp11.2 translocation RCC, 8 chromophobe RCCs, 10 oncocytomas, and 7 angiomyolipomas. FISH evaluation was performed blinded to karyotype data, available in about two-thirds of cases. Furthermore, conventional sections of 4 Xp11.2 RCCs, 4 RCCs with mixed papillary and clear cell features, and 4 cases of alveolar soft part sarcoma (the latter for control purposes) were also assessed by FISH. Break-apart signals were homogeneously identified throughout tumor cells in 2 cases from the tissue microarrays including 1 known Xp11.2 RCC and 1 misdiagnosed Xp11.2 RCC. All conventional sections from the Xp11.2 RCC and alveolar soft part sarcoma cases were positive for the TFE3 rearrangement by FISH. All remaining cases were negative. Our study shows the clinical application of FISH in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue for detection of Xp11.2 translocation RCCs and other tumors with this genetic aberration.

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

3.9
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