Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 24, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2006: 4503
© 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Teh, B. T. Articles by Rogers, C. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Teh, B. T. Articles by Rogers, C. G.

Abstract

Gene expression profiling identifies two distinct papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subgroups of contrasting prognosis

Van Andel Research Institute, Grand Rapids, MI; Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; Alexandra Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; University of California, Los Angeles, CA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

4503

Background: Despite the moderate incidence of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC), there is a disproportionately limited understanding of its underlying genetic programs. There is no effective therapy for metastatic PRCC, and patients are often excluded from kidney cancer trials. A morphological classification of PRCC into Type 1 and Type 2 tumors has been recently proposed, but its biological relevance remains uncertain. Methods: We studied the gene expression profiles of 34 cases of PRCC using Affymetrix HGU133 Plus 2.0 arrays (54,675 probe sets) using both unsupervised and supervised analysis. Comparative genomic microarray analysis (CGMA) was used to infer cytogenetic aberrations, and pathways were ranked with a curated database. Expression of selected genes was validated by immunohistochemistry in 34 samples, with 15 independent tumors. Results: We identified two highly distinct molecular PRCC subclasses with morphologic correlation. The first class, with excellent survival, corresponded to three histological subtypes: Type 1, low-grade Type 2 and mixed Type 1/low-grade Type 2 tumors. The second class, with poor survival, corresponded to high-grade Type 2 tumors (n = 11). Dysregulation of G1/S and G2/M checkpoint genes were found in Class 1 and Class 2 tumors respectively, alongside characteristic chromosomal aberrations. We identified a 7-transcript predictor that classified samples on cross-validation with 97% accuracy. Immunohistochemistry confirmed high expression of cytokeratin 7 in Class 1 tumors, and of topoisomerase II in Class 2 tumors. Conclusions: We report two molecular subclasses of PRCC, which are biologically and clinically distinct, which may be readily distinguished in a clinical setting. This may also have therapeutic implications.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract presentation from the 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting