ABCC2 brush-border expression predicts outcome in papillary renal cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional study of 254 cases

AIMS

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) histologic subtyping is no longer recommended in the 2022 WHO classification. Currently, WHO/ISUP nucleolar grade is the only accepted prognostic histologic parameter for PRCC. ABCC2, a renal drug transporter, has been shown to significantly predict outcomes in PRCC. In this study we evaluated the prognostic significance of ABCC2 IHC staining patterns in a large, multi-institutional PRCC cohort and assessed the association of these patterns with ABCC2 mRNA expression.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed 254 PRCCs for ABCC2 IHC reactivity patterns that were stratified into negative, cytoplasmic, brush-border <50%, and brush-border ≥50%. RNA in situ hybridization (ISH) was used to determine the transcript level of each group. Survival analysis was performed with SPSS and GraphPad software. RNA-ISH showed that the ABCC2 group with any brush-border staining was associated with a significant increase in the transcript level, when compared to the negative/cytoplasmic group (P = 0.034). Both ABCC2 groups with brush-border <50% (P = 0.024) and brush-border ≥50% (P < 0.001) were also associated with worse disease-free survival (DFS) in univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that only ABCC2 IHC brush-border (<50% and ≥50%) reactivity groups (P = 0.037 and P = 0.003, respectively), and high-stage disease (P < 0.001) had a DFS of prognostic significance. In addition, ABCC2 brush-border showed significantly worse DFS in pT1a (P = 0.014), pT1 (P = 0.013), ≤4 cm tumour (P = 0.041) and high stage (P = 0.014) groups, while a similar analysis with high WHO/ISUP grade in these groups was not significant.

CONCLUSION

ABCC2 IHC brush-border expression in PRCC correlates with significantly higher gene expression and also independently predicts survival outcomes.

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018106181.