Search

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) encompasses different histologic subtypes. Distinguishing between the subtypes is usually made by morphologic assessment, which is not always accurate., Objective: Our aim was to identify microRNA (miRNA) signatures that can distinguish the different RCC subtypes accurately., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 94 different subtype cases were analysed. miRNA microarray analysis was performed on fresh frozen tissues of three common RCC subtypes (clear cell, chromophobe, and papillary) and on oncocytoma. Results were validated on the original as well as on an independent set of tumours, using quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) analysis with miRNA-specific primers., Measurements: Microarray data were analysed by standard approaches. Relative expression for qRT-PCR was determined using the ΔΔC(T) method, and expression values were normalised to small nucleolar RNA, C/D box 44 (SNORD44, formerly RNU44). Experiments were done in triplicate, and an average was calculated. Fold change was expressed as a log(2) value. The top-scoring pairs classifier identified operational decision rules for distinguishing between different RCC subtypes and was robust under cross-validation., Results and Limitations: We developed a classification system that can distinguish the different RCC subtypes using unique miRNA signatures in a maximum of four steps. The system has a sensitivity of 97% in distinguishing normal from RCC, 100% for clear cell RCC (ccRCC) subtype, 97% for papillary RCC (pRCC) subtype, and 100% accuracy in distinguishing oncocytoma from chromophobe RCC (chRCC) subtype. This system was cross-validated and showed an accuracy of about 90%. The oncogenesis of ccRCC is more closely related to pRCC, whereas chRCC is comparable with oncocytoma. We also developed a binary classification system that can distinguish between two individual subtypes., Conclusions: MiRNA expression patterns can distinguish between RCC subtypes., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The muscularis mucosa underlying the metaplastic mucosa of Barrett esophagus is frequently duplicated, with an intervening layer of lamina propria between the superficial or neomuscularis mucosa (NMM) and the deep/true muscularis mucosa (TMM). This duplication causes difficulties with accurate staging of superficially invasive carcinoma in biopsy specimens and endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs), as invasion underneath the superficial muscle layers may be mistaken for submucosal invasion. Mucosal resections or other ablative nonsurgical therapies can be curative in patients with esophageal intramucosal carcinoma, whereas patients with submucosal invasion are recommended for esophagectomy. Therefore, the accurate staging of such specimens is crucial. Smoothelin is a novel smooth muscle protein expressed only by fully differentiated smooth muscle cells and not by proliferative or noncontractile smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts. It has been suggested that in the bladder, immunohistochemistry for smoothelin may help separate hyperplastic muscularis mucosa from the true muscularis propria. We hypothesized that in the esophagus, immunohistochemistry for smoothelin would differentiate the NMM from the TMM., Design: Thirty cases of EMRs for Barrett esophagus-related neoplasia were retrieved from the archives of the pathology department, St Michael's Hospital. Immunohistochemical staining for smoothelin was performed to evaluate differential staining in the TMM versus NMM. Fifteen cases were stained for smooth muscle actin and smooth muscle myosin. The staining score was evaluated on a scale from 0 to 3 according to the percentage and intensity of staining., Results: Immunohistochemical staining results for smoothelin were as follows: the NMM showed weak focal staining (+1) in 23 of 30 cases (82%), and moderate staining (+2) in 7 of 30 cases (12%), and the TMM showed very strong and diffuse staining (+3) in 30 of 30 cases. No cases showed negative (0) staining in the NMM. With smooth muscle actin and myosin, strong and diffuse staining was observed with similar intensity in both the TMM and NMM in 15 of 15 cases., Conclusions: In our study, smoothelin staining in the NMM is significantly weaker than that seen in the true/deep muscularis mucosa. This pattern is similar to that reported for the muscularis mucosae of the urinary bladder. Although smoothelin can readily distinguish the 2 layers, its value might be limited by the need to simultaneously compare the 2 layers. Although this might be of use in EMR specimens in which both layers are visible, use in biopsies may be limited as the residual staining in the NMM may inhibit definitive evaluation. This issue may be resolved by the use of appropriate standard controls, individual optimization of the antibody, and the use of an automated digital assessment.