cMET: a prognostic marker in papillary renal cell carcinoma?

The tyrosine-protein kinase c-Met plays a decisive role in numerous cellular processes, as a proto-oncogene that supports aggressive tumor behavior. It is still unknown whether c-Met could be relevant for prognosis of papillary RCC (pRCC). Specimen collection was a collaboration of the PANZAR consor...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Human pathology 2022-03, Vol.121, p.1-10
Hauptverfasser: Erlmeier, Franziska, Bruecher, Benedict, Stöhr, Christine, Herrmann, Edwin, Polifka, Iris, Agaimy, Abbas, Trojan, Lutz, Ströbel, Philipp, Becker, Frank, Wülfing, Christian, Barth, Peter, Stöckle, Michael, Staehler, Michael, Stief, Christian, Haferkamp, Axel, Hohenfellner, Markus, Macher-Göppinger, Stephan, Wullich, Bernd, Noldus, Joachim, Brenner, Walburgis, Roos, Frederik C., Walter, Bernhard, Otto, Wolfgang, Burger, Maximilian, Schrader, Andres Jan, Hartmann, Arndt, Mondorf, Yvonne, Ivanyi, Philipp, Mikuteit, Marie, Steffens, Sandra
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The tyrosine-protein kinase c-Met plays a decisive role in numerous cellular processes, as a proto-oncogene that supports aggressive tumor behavior. It is still unknown whether c-Met could be relevant for prognosis of papillary RCC (pRCC). Specimen collection was a collaboration of the PANZAR consortium. Patients' medical history and tumor specimens were collected from 197 and 110 patients with type 1 and 2 pRCC, respectively. Expression of cMET was determined by immunohistochemistry. In total, cMET staining was evaluable in of 97 of 197 type 1 and 63 of 110 type 2 pRCC cases. Five-year overall survival revealed no significant difference in dependence of cMET positivity (cMET− vs. cMET+: pRCC type 1: 84.8% vs. 80.3%, respectively [p = 0.303, log-rank]; type 2: 71.4% vs. 64.4%, respectively [p = 0.239, log-rank]). Interestingly, the subgroup analyses showed a significant difference for cMET expression in T stage and metastases of the pRCC type 2 (p = 0.014, p = 0.022, chi-square). The cMET-positive type 2 collective developed more metastases than the cMET-negative cohort (pRCC type 2 M+: cMET−: 2 [4.3%] vs. cMET+: 12 [19%]). cMET expression did not qualify as a prognostic marker in pRCC for overall survival. •The tyrosine-protein kinase c-Met supports aggressive tumor behavior and plays a decisive role in numerous cellular processes.•Patients' medical history and tumor specimens were collected from n = 197 and n = 110 patients with type 1 and 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma, respectively.•cMET expression did not qualify as a prognostic marker in papillary renal cell carcinoma for overall survival.
ISSN:0046-8177
1532-8392
DOI:10.1016/j.humpath.2021.12.007