Expression of RON Proto-oncogene in Renal Oncocytoma and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma

Expression Analysis of Wnt-5a in Renal Epithelial Neoplasms: Distinguishing Renal Oncocytoma from a Wide Spectrum of Renal Cell Carcinomas

Objective

To study the expression of a novel marker, Wnt-5a, in renal epithelial neoplasms and determine its clinicopathological significance.

Methods

Immunohistochemical analysis of Wnt-5a was carried out in normal human kidney samples as well as in 123 primary renal epithelial neoplasms including 37 clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), 24 papillary RCCs (15 type 1 and 9 type 2), 25 chromophobe RCCs, 11 Xp11 translocation carcinomas, 6 mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinomas, and 20 oncocytomas.

Results

Wnt-5a was expressed in 18.9% (7/37) of clear cell RCCs, 12.5% (3/24) of papillary RCCs, 16% (4/25) of chromophobe RCCs, 18.2% (2/11) of Xp11 translocation carcinomas, 0% (0/6) of mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinomas, and 100% (20/20) of oncocytomas. There was a significant difference in Wnt-5a immunohistochemistry between renal oncocytoma and the other subtypes of RCC (P <0.01).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that Wnt-5a is a potentially useful immunohistochemical marker for the complex differential diagnosis between oncocytoma and other subtypes of RCC and also suggest that Wnt-5a may be a tumor suppressor gene in RCC.

Phase 1 study of narnatumab, an anti-RON receptor monoclonal antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors

Purpose Macrophage-stimulating 1-receptor (RON) is expressed on macrophages, epithelial cells, and a variety of tumors. Narnatumab (IMC-RON8; LY3012219) is a neutralizing monoclonal antibody that blocks RON binding to its ligand, macrophage-stimulating protein (MSP). This study assessed safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of narnatumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Narnatumab was administered intravenously weekly at 5, 10, 15, or 20 mg/kg or every 2 weeks at 15, 20, 30, or 40 mg/kg in 4-week cycles. Results Thirty-nine patients were treated, and 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (grade 3 hyponatremia, 5 mg/kg) was reported. The most common narnatumab-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (20.5%) and decreased appetite, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting (10.3% each). Except for 2 treatment-related grade 3 AEs (hyponatremia, hypokalemia), all treatment-related AEs were grade 1 or 2. Narnatumab had a short half-life (<7 days). After Cycle 2, no patients had concentrations above 140 μg/mL (concentration that demonstrated antitumor activity in animal models), except for 1 patient receiving 30 mg/kg biweekly. Eleven patients had a best response of stable disease, ranging from 6 weeks to 11 months. Despite only 1 DLT, due to suboptimal drug exposure, the dose was not escalated beyond 40 mg/kg biweekly. This decision was based on published data reporting that mRNA splice variants of RON are highly prevalent in tumors, accumulate in cytoplasm, and are not accessible by large-molecule monoclonal antibodies. Conclusions Narnatumab was well tolerated and showed limited antitumor activity with this dosing regimen.

Strategies of targeting the extracellular domain of RON tyrosine kinase receptor for cancer therapy and drug delivery

PURPOSE

Cancer is one of the most important life-threatening diseases in the world. The current efforts to combat cancer are being focused on molecular-targeted therapies. The main purpose of such approaches is based on targeting cancer cell-specific molecules to minimize toxicity for the normal cells. RON (Recepteur d'Origine Nantais) tyrosine kinase receptor is one of the promising targets in cancer-targeted therapy and drug delivery.

METHODS

In this review, we will summarize the available agents against extracellular domain of RON with potential antitumor activities.

RESULTS

The presented antibodies and antibody drug conjugates against RON in this review showed wide spectrum of in vitro and in vivo antitumor activities promising the hope for them entering the clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Due to critical role of extracellular domain of RON in receptor activation, the development of therapeutic agents against this region could lead to fruitful outcome in cancer therapy.

Differentiation of oncocytoma from chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC): can novel molecular biomarkers help solve an old problem?

Standard treatment of renal neoplasms remains surgical resection, and nephrectomy for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) still has the best chance of cure with excellent long-term results. For smaller renal masses, especially stage T1a tumours less than 4 cm, nephron-sparing surgery is often employed. However, small incidentally detected renal masses pose an important diagnostic dilemma as a proportion of them may be benign and could be managed conservatively. Renal oncocytoma is one such lesion that may pose little risk to a patient if managed with routine surveillance rather than surgery. Additionally, lower-risk RCC, such as small chromophobe RCC, may be managed in a similar way, although with more caution than the renal oncocytomas (RO). The ability to differentiate ROs from chromophobe RCCs, and from other RCCs with a greater chance of metastasis, would guide the physician and patient towards the most appropriate management, whether nephron-sparing surgical resection or conservative surveillance. Consistent accurate diagnosis of ROs is likely to remain elusive until modern molecular biomarkers are identified and applied routinely. This review focuses on the differentiation of renal oncocytomas and chromophobe RCCs. It summarises the history, epidemiology and clinical presentation of the renal neoplasms, explains the diagnostic dilemma, and describes the value, or not, of current molecular markers that are in development to assist in diagnosis of the renal neoplasms.

CD10+ and CK7/RON- immunophenotype distinguishes renal cell carcinoma, conventional type with eosinophilic morphology from its mimickers

BACKGROUND

The distinction between renal cell carcinoma conventional (clear cell) type with eosinophilic morphology (ccRCC), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma eosinophilic variant (chRCC), and renal oncocytoma (RO) is a common diagnostic dilemma. We aimed to identify an immunohistochemical panel to discriminate ccRCC from its morphologic mimics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-three renal neoplasms (19 ccRCC, 18 chRCC, and 16 RO) were selected. Immunohistochemical stains for CD10, cytokeratin 7 (CK7), c-Kit, E-cadherin, N-cadherin, kidney-specific cadherin (Ksp-cadherin), and Recepteur d'origine nantais (RON) were performed.

RESULTS

Ten (53%) of 19 ccRCC were positive for CD10, 11 (58%) for E-cadherin, 8 (42%) for N-cadherin, 5 (26%) for Ksp-cadherin, 9 (47%) for RON, 6 (32%) for CK7, and 5 (26%) for c-Kit. In chRCC/RO group, 5 of 34 (15%) were positive for CD10, 32 (94%) for E-cadherin, 2 (6%) for N-cadherin, 1 (3%) for Ksp-cadherin, 22 (65%) for RON, 14 (41%) for CK7, and 25 (25/32, 76%) for c-kit. Univariately, negative c-Kit [odds ratio (OR)=8.75, P=0.001, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.747], negative E-cadherin (OR=11.64, P=0.005, AUC=0.681), positive N-cadherin (OR=11.64, P=0.005, AUC=0.681), positive Ksp-cadherin (OR=11.79, P=0.031, AUC=0.617), and positive CD10 (OR=6.44, P=0.005, AUC=0.690) detects ccRCC versus chRCC/RO. Multivariate analysis showed significant association between CD10 positivity and ccRCC (OR=16.90, P=0.007) and between RON negativity and ccRCC (OR=7.17, P=0.047) when CK7 is negative.

CONCLUSIONS

The best single predictors for ccRCC are negative c-Kit, negative E-cadherin, positive N-cadherin, positive Ksp-cadherin, and positive CD10. However, considering the studied markers, a combination of positive CD10 and negative CK7 and RON is considered the best immunohistochemical panel in distinguishing ccRCC from chRCC/RO.

Diagnostic Utility of Caveolin-1 and MOC-31 in Distinguishing Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma from Renal Oncocytoma

Purpose

Renal tumors consist of heterogeneous groups that frequently show complex and overlapping morphology, thus making it difficult to make a correct diagnosis. One of the most problematic differential diagnoses is to distinguish chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from oncocytoma. These should be distinguished by differences in their behavior and clinical outcome. Our study was performed to identify whether caveolin-1 and MOC-31 are useful immunohistochemical markers for differentiating chromophobe RCC from oncocytoma.

Materials and Methods

We selected 23 chromophobe RCCs, 8 oncocytomas, and 25 clear cell RCCs and performed immunohistochemical staining for caveolin-1 and MOC-31.

Results

Caveolin-1 was positive in 20 (87%) of 23 chromophobe RCCs, 0 of 8 oncocytomas, and 21 (84%) of 25 clear cell RCCs. MOC-31 was positive in 22 (96%) of 23 chromophobe RCCs, 2 (25%) of 8 oncocytomas, and 14 (56%) of 25 clear cell RCCs. There was a statistically significant difference in the expression of caveolin-1 and MOC-31 between chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma (p<0.001). In addition, clear cell RCC was also significantly different from oncocytoma in the expression of caveolin-1 (p<0.001) and was significantly different from chromophobe RCC in the expression of MOC-31 (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Caveolin-1 and MOC-31 can be useful markers in the differential diagnosis of chromophobe RCC, oncocytoma, and clear cell RCC.

Molecular pathology of renal oncocytoma: a review

Differentiating renal oncocytoma from its renal cell carcinoma (RCC) mimics, particularly chromophobe RCC, can be difficult, especially when limited tissue is available for evaluation and requires sophisticated microscopic, ultrastructural and immunohistochemical evaluation. In this review, the relevant literature has been reviewed, and supporting data obtained by applying modern microarray-based technologies are discussed with a focus on molecular pathology of renal oncocytoma. The high resolution whole-genome DNA-microarray based analyses excluded with all certainty the occurrence of small specific alterations. Renal oncocytomas are characterized by variable chromosomal patterns. The number of genes selected by global gene expression analyses and their usefulness in the diagnostic pathology based on immunohistochemical evaluation is far below the expectations. The conflicting staining patterns, together with the poor specificity of proposed antibodies, leads us to believe that these candidate immunomarkers might not help in the separation of these tumors. Applying DNA based tools might help in the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma with uncertain histology. However, only the combination of all available techniques could give reliable information.

Molecular diagnosis of renal cell neoplasms: the usefulness of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization

BACKGROUND

The classification of renal cell neoplasms includes different subtypes of tumors characterized by different outcome. Some overlapping morphological features and the increasing recognition of new entities are making the traditional histologic distinction of renal cell neoplasms difficult and more tools improving the specificity of the correct identification are needed. Among molecular analyses, immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization have become the most helpful procedures, solving many issues in the differential diagnosis of the renal cell neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to merge the large amount of recent knowledge regarding molecular markers of renal cell neoplasms into a helpful diagnostic algorithm.

CONCLUSION

It is proposed that immunoreactions for CD10, Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, cytokeratin 7, parvalbumin and S100A1, and the cytogenetical analysis of chromosomes 3p, 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 17 and Y can now offer the most specific tools for the classification of renal cell tumors.

Renal epithelial neoplasms: diagnostic applications of gene expression profiling

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common form of kidney cancer in adults. RCC is a significant challenge for pathologic diagnosis and clinical management. The primary approach to diagnosis is by light microscopy, using the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system, which defines histopathologic tumor subtypes with distinct clinical behavior and underlying genetic mutations. However, light microscopic diagnosis of RCC subtypes can be difficult due to variable histology, morphologic features shared by tumor subtypes, and a growing frequency of small tumor biopsies with limited morphologic information. In addition to these diagnostic problems, the clinical behavior of RCC is highly variable, and therapeutic response rates are poor. Few clinical assays are available to predict outcome in RCC or correlate behavior with histology. Therefore, novel RCC classification systems based on gene expression should be useful for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Recent microarray studies have shown that renal tumors are characterized by distinct gene expression profiles, which can be used to discover novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Here, we review clinical features of kidney cancer, the WHO classification system, and the growing role of molecular classification for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy of this disease.

Claudin-7 immunohistochemistry in renal tumors: a candidate marker for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma identified by gene expression profiling

CONTEXT

The differential diagnosis of eosinophilic renal tumors can be difficult by light microscopy. In particular, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is difficult to distinguish from oncocytoma. This differential diagnosis is important because chromophobe RCC is malignant, whereas oncocytoma is benign. Furthermore, chromophobe RCC has distinct malignant potential and prognosis compared with eosinophilic variants of other RCC subtypes. Immunohistochemistry is useful for distinguishing chromophobe RCC from other subtypes of renal carcinoma, but no expression marker reliably separates chromophobe RCC from oncocytoma.

OBJECTIVE

In a previous gene expression microarray analysis of renal tumor subtypes, we found the distal nephron markers claudin-7 and claudin-8 to be overexpressed in chromophobe RCC versus oncocytoma and other tumor subtypes. We have confirmed similar findings in independent microarray data and validated differential claudin-7 protein expression by immunohistochemistry.

DESIGN

Immunohistochemical analysis of claudin-7 in 36 chromophobe RCCs, 43 oncocytomas, 42 clear cell RCCs, and 29 papillary RCCs.

RESULTS

Membranous claudin-7 expression was detected in 67% chromophobe RCCs, compared with 0% clear cell RCCs, 28% papillary RCCs, and 26% oncocytomas (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on microarray and immunohistochemical data, we propose claudin-7 to be a candidate expression marker for distinguishing chromophobe RCC from other renal tumor subtypes, including the morphologically similar oncocytoma. The clinical utility of claudin-7 should be validated in independent studies of renal tumors, possibly in combination with additional targets in a multiplex immunohistochemical panel.

Key clinical issues in renal cancer: a challenge for proteomics

Renal cancer has many clinical challenges which proteomics is ideally placed to address. The issues cover all aspects of the disease including diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection and monitoring to detect metastatic disease. In all cases novel biomarkers would considerably help in clinical management and with the relative resistance to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy, a better understanding of the underlying pathogenesis may contribute to the much needed development of novel therapeutic targets and the better use of promising new anti-angiogenic treatments. This review briefly highlights some of the clinical issues and describes proteomics-based approaches generally, before focussing on reviewing the proteomic studies to date in this area.

Development of two-stage SVM-RFE gene selection strategy for microarray expression data analysis

Extracting a subset of informative genes from microarray expression data is a critical data preparation step in cancer classification and other biological function analyses. Though many algorithms have been developed, the Support Vector Machine - Recursive Feature Elimination (SVM-RFE) algorithm is one of the best gene feature selection algorithms. It assumes that a smaller "filter-out" factor in the SVM-RFE, which results in a smaller number of gene features eliminated in each recursion, should lead to extraction of a better gene subset. Because the SVM-RFE is highly sensitive to the "filter-out" factor, our simulations have shown that this assumption is not always correct and that the SVM-RFE is an unstable algorithm. To select a set of key gene features for reliable prediction of cancer types or subtypes and other applications, a new two-stage SVM-RFE algorithm has been developed. It is designed to effectively eliminate most of the irrelevant, redundant and noisy genes while keeping information loss small at the first stage. A fine selection for the final gene subset is then performed at the second stage. The two-stage SVM-RFE overcomes the instability problem of the SVM-RFE to achieve better algorithm utility. We have demonstrated that the two-stage SVM-RFE is significantly more accurate and more reliable than the SVM-RFE and three correlation-based methods based on our analysis of three publicly available microarray expression datasets. Furthermore, the two-stage SVM-RFE is computationally efficient because its time complexity is O(d*log(2)d}, where d is the size of the original gene set.

S100A1: a powerful marker to differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma

AIMS

The common subtypes of renal tumours are conventional, papillary, chromophobe carcinoma and oncocytoma. The morphological differentiation between chromophobe carcinoma and oncocytoma may be difficult. The aim was to evaluate S100A1 as a new marker for the differentiation of the two subtypes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-nine tumour samples [nine clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), six papillary RCCs, nine chromophobe RCCs and 15 oncocytomas] were studied. The protein expression of S100A1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The gene expression of S100A1 was analysed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Nine oncocytomas showed strong immunoreactivity for S100A1. Four oncocytomas were scored as moderate and one as weak reactivity. In total, 14/15 (93%) of oncocytomas were considered to be immunopositive. In contrast, all nine chromophobe RCCs were considered to be immunonegative. There was a significant difference in the positive percentages of staining of S100A1 between these two subtypes (P < 0.01). S100A1 immunoreactivity was observed in 6/9 clear cell and 4/6 papillary carcinomas. The results of S100A1 gene expression corresponded well with the results of immunohistochemistry.

CONCLUSION

S100A1 may be a potentially powerful marker to differentiate the chromophobe RCC from renal oncocytoma.

Human kidney injury molecule-1 (hKIM-1): a useful immunohistochemical marker for diagnosing renal cell carcinoma and ovarian clear cell carcinoma

Human kidney injury molecule-1 (hKIM-1), a type I transmembrane glycoprotein expressed in injured renal proximal tubules, was also found in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The current study attempts to evaluate the diagnostic utility of hKIM-1 in a large series of 480 neoplasms including defined subtypes of renal cell tumors, metastatic RCCs, and nonrenal tumors. Tissue microarray (TMA) sections containing 179 renal cell tumors (73 clear cell RCC, 30 papillary RCC, 16 chromophobe RCC, 15 oncocytoma, and 45 metastatic RCC) were included in this study. In addition, 80 cases of renal cell neoplasm and 221 nonrenal tumors in routine tissue sections were also included. Both TMA and routine sections were incubated with anti-hKIM-1 monoclonal antibody using an EnVision-HRP kit. The results demonstrated that a membranous/cytoplasmic staining pattern for hKIM-1 was observed in 54 of 73 (74%) clear cell RCCs and 28 of 30 (93%) papillary RCCs on TMA sections. Zero of 54 chromophobe RCCs and 4 of 41 (9.75%) oncocytomas were positive for hKIM-1 when combining TMA and routine sections. Similar staining results were observed in 35 of 45 (78%) metastatic RCCs. Data from cDNA microarray expression and Western blot demonstrated similar findings. Fifteen of 16 cases (93.8%) of clear cell carcinoma of the ovary demonstrated positive reactivity for hKIM-1. These data indicate that hKIM-1: (1) is a relatively sensitive and specific marker for papillary, clear cell, and metastatic RCCs, (2) can be used to distinguish clear cell from chromophobe RCC, and (3) may serve as a diagnostic marker for clear cell carcinoma of the ovary.

Risk factors, classification, and staging of renal cell cancer

Knowledge about renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has increased exponentially over the last decades. A clear understanding of RCC is of utmost importance to prevent the disease and improve the outcomes. Large epidemiologic studies have identified cigarette smoking, chemical agents, obesity, hypertension, and end-stage renal disease as risk factors associated with RCC. Identification and confirmation of risk factors may be projected into preventive strategies. Genetic studies of inherited disorders associated with an enhanced risk of RCC have elucidated many important targets for anticancer therapy. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently developed a new histologic classification of renal cell tumors that has demonstrated prognostic utility. A refined clinical staging system is improving our ability to prognosticate the outcome of RCC patients. This article provides a practical yet comprehensive review of the risk factors, classification, and staging of RCC focusing on recent updates.

Therapeutic implications of a human neutralizing antibody to the macrophage-stimulating protein receptor tyrosine kinase (RON), a c-MET family member

RON is a member of the c-MET receptor tyrosine kinase family. Like c-MET, RON is expressed by a variety of epithelial-derived tumors and cancer cell lines and it is thought to play a functional role in tumorigenesis. To date, antagonists of RON activity have not been tested in vivo to validate RON as a potential cancer target. In this report, we used an antibody phage display library to generate IMC-41A10, a human immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) antibody that binds with high affinity (ED50 = 0.15 nmol/L) to RON and effectively blocks interaction with its ligand, macrophage-stimulating protein (MSP; IC50 = 2 nmol/L). We found IMC-41A10 to be a potent inhibitor of receptor and downstream signaling, cell migration, and tumorigenesis. It antagonized MSP-induced phosphorylation of RON, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), and AKT in several cancer cell lines. In HT-29 colon, NCI-H292 lung, and BXPC-3 pancreatic cancer xenograft tumor models, IMC-41A10 inhibited tumor growth by 50% to 60% as a single agent, and in BXPC-3 xenografts, it led to tumor regressions when combined with Erbitux. Western blot analyses of HT-29 and NCI-H292 xenograft tumors treated with IMC-41A10 revealed a decrease in MAPK phosphorylation compared with control IgG-treated tumors, suggesting that inhibition of MAPK activity may be required for the antitumor activity of IMC-41A10. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration that a RON antagonist and specifically an inhibitory antibody of RON negatively affects tumorigenesis. Another major contribution of this report is an extensive analysis of RON expression in approximately 100 cancer cell lines and approximately 300 patient tumor samples representing 10 major cancer types. Taken together, our results highlight the potential therapeutic usefulness of RON activity inhibition in human cancers.

An immunohistochemical approach to the differential diagnosis of renal tumors

Renal neoplasms comprise several distinct clinicopathologic entities with potential prognostic and the rapeutic differences. Although careful morphologic examination using sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin will allow for the correct diagnosis in the majority of cases, there is sufficient overlap between several entities such that ancillary techniques may be necessary to arrive at the correct diagnosis. In routine diagnostic surgical pathology practice of renal tumors, immunohistochemistry is the foremost ancillary technique. Using an approach based on common histologic patterns (tumors with clear cytoplasm, granular cytoplasm, tubulopapillary architecture, spindle cell morphology, small round-cell morphology, and infiltrating poorly differentiated carcinoma), we will discuss the utility of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms. In recent years, needle biopsies from renal masses are being increasingly performed. In these small biopsies, the entire range of cytoarchitectural features that are generally necessary to make a diagnosis may not be fully appreciated. Immunohistochemistry may be helpful in this setting to narrow the differential diagnosis or to arrive at a definitive diagnosis. Finally, the use of immunohistochemistry for the confirmation of metastatic renal cell carcinoma presenting at distant sites will be discussed. Panels of immunohistochemical stains are proposed for different settings, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC) marker, CD10, and vimentin to suggest renal origin of a metastatic tumor, and markers to aid in subclassification of RCC, including parvalbumin and c-kit for chromophobe RCC, and cytokeratin 7 and alpha-methyl-acyl-CoA racemase for papillary RCC.

Oncocytic renal neoplasms: diagnostic considerations

Advances in our understanding of renal neoplasia have resulted in recognition of numerous tumors that are composed predominantly of cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm. This article discusses the features of renal oncocytoma (including oncocytosis), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and clear cell RCC; explores the relationship between renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC; briefly discusses other tumors with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm; and emphasizes the differential diagnosis of such tumors.

Molecular classification of renal tumors by gene expression profiling

Renal tumor classification is important because histopathological subtypes are associated with distinct clinical behavior. However, diagnosis is difficult because tumor subtypes have overlapping microscopic characteristics. Therefore, ancillary methods are needed to optimize classification. We used oligonucleotide microarrays to analyze 31 adult renal tumors, including clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), papillary RCC, chromophobe RCC, oncocytoma, and angiomyolipoma. Expression profiles correlated with histopathology; unsupervised algorithms clustered 30 of 31 tumors according to appropriate diagnostic subtypes while supervised analyses identified significant, subtype-specific expression markers. Clear cell RCC overexpressed proximal nephron, angiogenic, and immune response genes, chromophobe RCC oncocytoma overexpressed distal nephron and oxidative phosphorylation genes, papillary RCC overexpressed serine protease inhibitors, and extracellular matrix products, and angiomyolipoma overexpressed muscle developmental, lipid biosynthetic, melanocytic, and distinct angiogenic factors. Quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry of formalin-fixed renal tumors confirmed overexpression of proximal nephron markers (megalin/low-density lipoprotein-related protein 2, alpha-methylacyl CoA racemase) in clear cell and papillary RCC and distal nephron markers (beta-defensin 1, claudin 7) in chromophobe RCC/oncocytoma. In summary, renal tumor subtypes were classified by distinct gene expression profiles, illustrating tumor pathobiology and translating into novel molecular bioassays using fixed tissue.

KIT and RCC Are Useful in Distinguishing Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma From the Granular Variant of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

The distinction between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, the granular cell variant of clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and renal oncocytoma is a common diagnostic dilemma. The usefulness of KIT, CD10, RCC, and RON in the differential diagnosis of these renal epithelial tumors was investigated. KIT was 100% positive in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (11 of 11) and renal oncocytoma (12 of 12). The KIT staining pattern was identical in both tumor types, with cytoplasmic membrane attenuation, and fine granular cytoplasmic staining. In contrast, KIT was absent in all granular cell variants of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (0 of 6). RCC was observed in more than 80% of the granular cell variant of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (5 of 6) but was negative in all chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (0 of 11) and renal oncocytomas (0 of 12). CD10 was expressed in 100% of the granular cell variant of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (6 of 6), 72% of chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (8 of 11), and 58% of renal oncocytomas (7 of 12). RON was 100% positive in the chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (11 of 11) and renal oncocytomas (12 of 12) but only 50% positive in the granular cell variant of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (3 of 6). Colloidal iron was diffusely and strongly positive in more than 80% of the chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (9 of 11), focally and weakly positive in 41% of the renal oncocytomas (5 of 12) but negative in all granular cell variant of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (0 of 6). The above results demonstrate that: 1) KIT is a very sensitive marker for both chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma; 2) immunohistochemistry using antibodies to KIT combined with RCC was sufficient to discriminate between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and the granular cell variant of clear cell renal cell carcinoma; and 3) neither RON, nor KIT, nor a combination of this panel can be used to distinguish chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma. Colloidal iron staining aided in this distinction for the majority of the chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (more than 80% positive) and renal oncocytomas (close to 60% negative).

C-kit expression in renal oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas

C- kit encodes the membrane-bound tyrosine kinase KIT, whose expression has been identified in several types of human neoplasms. Recently, KIT has been reported to be a marker for chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and renal angiomyolipoma. However, expression of this molecule has not been adequately studied in other renal tumors, particularly oncocytoma, which may morphologically resemble chromophobe RCC. In this study, we analyzed c- kit messenger RNA (mRNA) levels in 17 chromophobe RCCs and 20 renal oncocytomas obtained from complementary DNA (cDNA) microarrays. Furthermore, comprehensive immunohistochemical analysis of KIT protein using a monoclonal antibody was performed in 226 renal tumors including chromophobe RCC (n=40), oncocytoma (n=41), clear-cell RCC (n=40), renal angiomyolipoma (n=29), and papillary RCC (n=21) on tissue microarrays (TMAs) and was compared with immunostaining results from 25 chromophobe RCCs and 30 oncocytomas using standard sections. The staining intensity was semiquantitatively graded on a 3-tier scoring system. All chromophobe RCCs and oncocytomas showed significant overexpression of c- kit mRNA. The average increase of mRNA compared with normal kidney tissue was 7.4-fold for chromophobe RCCs and 7.4-fold for oncocytomas. Immunohistochemical expression of KIT was found in most chromophobe RCCs (95% in TMAs and 96% in conventional sections) and oncocytomas (88% in TMAs and 100% in conventional sections) but was infrequently observed in renal angiomyolipomas (17%), papillary RCCs (5%), and clear-cell RCCs (3%). Furthermore, the average KIT immunoreactivity in TMAs was stronger in chromophobe RCC (1.93) and oncocytoma (2.07) than in other subtypes of renal tumors tested, including angiomyolipomas (0.17), papillary RCCs (0.05), and clear-cell RCCs (0.03). In conclusion, we found a significant elevation of c- kit mRNA by cDNA expression microarrays and overexpression of KIT protein by immunohistochemistry not only in chromophobe RCCs but also in oncocytomas. In contrast, immunohistochemical expression of KIT was not detected in most other types of renal cell tumors evaluated. The differential expression of c- kit in these renal tumors may have diagnostic and therapeutic implications.