Review of papillary renal cell carcinoma with focus on clinical and pathobiological aspects

Recent studies have shown that papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is clinically and genotypically a distinct entity. Papillary RCCs account for about 10-15% of renal parenchymal neoplasms. Macroscopically, the cut surface is yellow or brown in color and large tumors frequently show cystic change. Hemorrhage and necrosis are common. Histologically, Delahunt and Eble have classified papillary RCCs into type 1 (small cells, single layer) and type 2 (large cells, pseudostratification) according to the cytoplasmic volume and thickness of the lining cells. In chromosomal analysis, gain of chromosomes 7 and 17, loss of Y chromosome and additional gains (chromosome 3q, 8p, 12q, 16q and 20q) are frequently found in type 1 papillary RCCs, but the chromosomal aberration of type 2 papillary RCCs seems to be more heterogenous than that of type 1 papillary RCCs. Mutations of MET proto-oncogenes in some cases of both hereditary and sporadic papillary RCCs have recently been detected. Furthermore, all hereditary and sporadic papillary RCCs with MET proto-oncogene show type 1 histological features. Type 1 papillary RCCs generally seem to have a favorable prognosis, but type 2 tumors have a worse prognosis than do type 1 tumors. Papillary RCCs with involvement of the X chromosome and cancer syndrome with predisposition to cutaneous/uterine leiomyomas and papillary RCCs, the histological features of which are basically different from those of usual papillary RCCs, have also been recently reported. Since papillary RCCs seem to constitute clinically, histologically, and even genetically more heterogenous groups than previously thought, further investigations are needed to characterize the subtype of papillary RCC.     

Review of sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma with focus on clinical and pathobiological aspects

In sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (RCC), it is generally accepted that the sarcomatoid portion is derived from metaplastic transformation of carcinoma. Sarcomatoid RCCs account for about 1-8% of all renal tumors. Macroscopically, tumors generally form encapsulated masses and show invasive growth. Sarcomatoid RCCs originate from all subtypes of RCCs, including conventional, papillary, chromophobe, and collecting duct carcinomas. With regard to the growth pattern of the sarcomatoid component, malignant fibrous histiocytomatous, fibrosarcomatous and unclassified sarcomatous patterns are frequently seen. Immunohistochemically, sarcomatoid RCCs are generally positive for AE1/AE3, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) and vimentin and negative for desmin, actin and S-100. Little is know about genetic alterations in sarcomatoid RCCs. Further studies are therefore needed to identify the key gene involved in sarcomatoid transformation of RCCs.     

Holistic and network analysis of meningioma pathogenesis and malignancy

Meningiomas, which originate from arachnoid cells and constitute the largest subgroup of all intracranial tumors, are generally benign, yet have the capacity to progress into a higher histological grade of malignancy associated with an increase in biological aggressivity and/or capacity to recur. To elucidate meningioma pathogenesis and malignancy, we applied a holistic and network approach analyzing cDNA and tissue microarray results. A potential pathway leading to meningioma angiogenesis, apoptosis and proliferation was evidenced as well as a regulatory network of the biomarkers including Ki-67, AR, CD34, P53, c-MYC, etc. which might support clinical research. In this potential pathway, ITGB1 could be the most important "superoncogene" playing a vital role in apoptosis and proliferation, while FOXO3A, MDM4 and MT3 are important to the malignancy process. Some genes are first reported that could explain why radiation induces meningioma and why more female than male patients are affected. Further, we present the hypothesis that HIV-Tat protein might have a close relationship with meningioma pathogenesis and malignancy.     

Molecular biomarkers as potential targets for therapeutic strategies in human testicular germ cell tumors: An overview

Testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs), the most common malignancy in males between 15 and 34 years of age and the most frequent cause of death from solid tumors in this age group. TGCTs can be subdivided into seminoma and non‐seminoma germ cell tumors (NSGCTs), including embryonal cell carcinoma, choriocarcinoma, yolk sac tumor, and teratoma. Seminomas and NSGCTs do not only present distinctive clinical features, but they also show significant differences as far as therapy and prognosis are concerned. Seminomas are highly sensitive to both radiation and chemotherapy, with a good prognosis, non‐seminomas are sensitive to platinum‐based combination chemotherapy and are less susceptible to radiation, with the exception of teratomas. The different therapeutic outcome might be explained by inherent properties of the cells from which testicular neoplasia originate. The unique treatment sensitivity of TGCTs is unexplained so far, but it is likely to be related to intrinsic molecular characteristics of the PGCs/gonocytes, from which these tumors originate. Many discovered bio‐markers including OCT3/4, SOX2, SOX17, HMGA1, HMGA2, PATZ1, GPR30, Aurora B, estrogen receptor β, and others have given further advantages to discriminate between histological subgroups. In addition, therapeutic approaches for the treatment of TGCTs have been proposed: humanized antibodies against receptors/surface molecules on cancer cells, inhibitors of serine–threonine, and tyrosine kinases, and others. The mini‐review will be an overview on the molecular alterations identified in TGCTs and on novel targeted antineoplastic strategies that might help to treat chemotherapy resistant TGCTs. J. Cell. Physiol. 228: 1641–1646, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Chromosome 3 translocations and familial renal cell cancer

Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) occur in both sporadic and familial forms. In a subset of families the occurrence of RCCs co-segregates with the presence of constitutional chromosome 3 translocations. Previously, such co-segregation phenomena have been widely employed to identify candidate genes in various hereditary (cancer) syndromes. Here we survey the translocation 3-positive RCC families that have been reported to date and the subsequent identification of its respective candidate genes using positional cloning strategies. Based on allele segregation, loss of heterozygosity and mutation analyses of the tumors, a multi-step model for familial RCC development has been generated. This model is relevant for (i) understanding familial tumorigenesis and (ii) rational patient management. In addition, a high throughput microarray-based strategy is presented that will enable the rapid identification of novel positional candidate genes via a single step procedure. The functional consequences of the (fusion) genes that have been identified so far, the multi-step model and its consequences for clinical diagnosis, the identification of persons at risk and genetic counseling in RCC families are discussed.     

Use of dual section mRNA in situ hybridisation/immunohistochemistry to clarify gene expression patterns during the early stages of nephron development in the embryo and in the mature nephron of the adult mouse kidney

The kidney is the most complex organ within the urogenital system. The adult mouse kidney contains in excess of 8,000 mature nephrons, each of which can be subdivided into a renal corpuscle and 14 distinct tubular segments. The histological complexity of this organ can make the clarification of the site of gene expression by in situ hybridisation difficult. We have defined a panel of seven antibodies capable of identifying the six stages of early nephron development, the tubular nephron segments and the components of the renal corpuscle within the embryonic and adult mouse kidney. We have analysed in detail the protein expression of Wt1, Calb1 Aqp1, Aqp2 and Umod using these antibodies. We have then coupled immunohistochemistry with RNA in situ hybridisation in order to precisely identify the expression pattern of different genes, including Wnt4, Umod and Spp1. This technique will be invaluable for examining at high resolution, the structure of both the developing and mature nephron where standard in situ hybridisation and histological techniques are insufficient. The use of this technique will enhance the expression analyses of genes which may be involved in nephron formation and the function of the mature nephron in the mouse.     

Immunohistochemical identification of intracytoplasmic lumens by cytokeratin typing may differentiate renal oncocytomas from chromophobe renal cell carcinomas

Renal oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) share a common phenotype and both originate from the intercalated cells of the collecting duct. This makes it very difficult to differentiate between the two tumors immunohistochemically. Therefore, we studied the results of immunohistochemistry focusing on certain characteristic structures that are occasionally present in renal oncocytomas. We carried out Hale's colloidal iron staining and immunohistochemistry for various cytokeratins (cytokeratins 7, 8, 10, 10/13, 14, 18, 19 and 20, and AE1/AE3) in four oncocytomas and six chromophobe RCCs. In addition, one renal oncocytoma and one chromophobe RCC were studied using electron microscopy. Two renal oncocytomas and one chromophobe RCC were completely unstained by colloidal iron. There was no evident difference between the immunohistochemical characteristics of oncocytomas and those of chromophobe RCCs. However, in all four renal oncocytomas we identified intracytoplasmic ring-like positive reactions for some cytokeratins (at least 3 antigens of cytokeratins 7, 8 and 19, and AE1/AE3), which corresponded ultrastructurally to the intracytoplasmic lumens (ICLs). In contrast, no such structures were found in any of the chromophobe RCCs using the antibodies employed. Therefore, immunohistochemical identification of ICLs by cytokeratin typing may be useful for differentiating between renal oncocytomas and chromophobe RCCs and be more sensitive in this respect than colloidal iron staining.     

Review of collecting duct carcinoma with focus on clinical and pathobiological aspects

In recent years, the concept of collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) has been established. CDCs constitute about 0.4 to 2% of RCCs. Macroscopically, CDCs occur in the renal medulla. On the cut surface, they are generally firm, white or grey and poorly circumscribed. Histologically, CDCs are characterized by various cytological and histological appearances. Furthermore, desmoplastic stromal reaction around the tumor and atypical hyperplastic changes or carcinoma in situ in the adjacent medullary collecting duct are frequently observed. Histological distinction from papillary RCCs is most important, because both tumors share some structural and histochemical features, and it seems that some investigators have confused diagnostic criteria for CDCs. On the other hand, the concept of medullary carcinoma, which preferentially occurs in a black race and shows histological features similar to those of CDC, has also recently been established. Although there have been few studies on chromosomal abnormalities of CDCs and consistent abnormalities have not been identified, a recent study using microsatellite analysis has shown a high frequency (60%) of LOH in 1q32.1-32.2. Further studies are needed to elucidate the genetic characteristics of CDCs and to determine the relationship or difference between CDCs and medullary carcinomas.     

Gene expression profiling of chromophobe renal cell carcinomas and renal oncocytomas by Affymetrix GeneChip using pooled and individual tumours

Due to overlapping morphology, malignant chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (RCC) and benign renal oncocytomas (RO) may pose a diagnostic problem. In the present study, we have applied different algorithms to evaluate the data sets obtained by hybridisation of pooled and also individual samples of renal cell tumours (RCT) onto two different gene expression platforms. The two approaches revealed high similarities in the gene expression profiles of chromophobe RCCs and ROs but also some differences. After identifying the differentially expressed genes by statistic analyses, the candidate genes were further selected by a real time and normal RT-PCR and their products were analysed by immunohistochemistry. We have identified CD82 and S100A1 as valuable markers for chromophobe RCC as well as AQP6 for ROs. However, these genes are expressed at the protein level in other types of RCTs as well albeit at a low frequency and low intensity. As none of the selected genes marks exclusively one type of RCTs, for the differential diagnosis of chromophobe RCCs and ROs, a set of markers such as CD82, S100A1 and AQP6 as well as some others would be an option in routine histological laboratories.     

Review of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with focus on clinical and pathobiological aspects

In recent years, the concept of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been established. Chromophobe RCCs account for about 4-6% of all renal tumors. Macroscopically, the cut surface of the tumor is generally grey-beige in color. Histologically, there are two variants (typical and eosinophilic). In the typical variant, large tumor cells with architecture of a compact tubulo-cystic pattern proliferate. The cytoplasm is abundant and shows a fine reticular translucent pattern. The cell border is thick, prominent and eosinophilic. In the eosinophilic variant, tumor cells are smaller and markedly eosinophilic, and a perinuclear halo is often seen. Histochemically, the tumor cells generally show a diffuse and strong reaction for Hale's colloidal iron staining. Ultrastructurally, tumor cells contain many cytoplasmic microvesicles (150-300 nm). In chromosomal analysis, a low chromosome number is characteristic of chromophobe RCCs, due to the frequent occurrence of a combined loss of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21. In differential diagnosis, histological distinction from oncocytomas, which share a common phenotype (intercalated cells of the collecting duct system), is most important. In this diagnostic setting, recent studies have given rise to several problems. Firstly, some cases of coexistent chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma (so-called renal oncocytosis) or cases of oncocytoma with metastasis have recently been reported. Secondly, the existence of chromophobe adenoma, which is the benign counterpart of chromophobe RCC, and an oncocytic variant of chromophobe RCC has recently been suggested. Therefore, further studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between chromophobe RCCs and oncocytomas, to confirm whether chromophobe adenoma actually exists or not, and to identify the key gene that causes chromophobe RCCs.     

Stem Cell-Like Gene Expression in Ovarian Cancer Predicts Type II Subtype and Prognosis

Although ovarian cancer is often initially chemotherapy-sensitive, the vast majority of tumors eventually relapse and patients die of increasingly aggressive disease. Cancer stem cells are believed to have properties that allow them to survive therapy and may drive recurrent tumor growth. Cancer stem cells or cancer-initiating cells are a rare cell population and difficult to isolate experimentally. Genes that are expressed by stem cells may characterize a subset of less differentiated tumors and aid in prognostic classification of ovarian cancer. The purpose of this study was the genomic identification and characterization of a subtype of ovarian cancer that has stem cell-like gene expression. Using human and mouse gene signatures of embryonic, adult, or cancer stem cells, we performed an unsupervised bipartition class discovery on expression profiles from 145 serous ovarian tumors to identify a stem-like and more differentiated subgroup. Subtypes were reproducible and were further characterized in four independent, heterogeneous ovarian cancer datasets. We identified a stem-like subtype characterized by a 51-gene signature, which is significantly enriched in tumors with properties of Type II ovarian cancer; high grade, serous tumors, and poor survival. Conversely, the differentiated tumors share properties with Type I, including lower grade and mixed histological subtypes. The stem cell-like signature was prognostic within high-stage serous ovarian cancer, classifying a small subset of high-stage tumors with better prognosis, in the differentiated subtype. In multivariate models that adjusted for common clinical factors (including grade, stage, age), the subtype classification was still a significant predictor of relapse. The prognostic stem-like gene signature yields new insights into prognostic differences in ovarian cancer, provides a genomic context for defining Type I/II subtypes, and potential gene targets which following further validation may be valuable in the clinical management or treatment of ovarian cancer.