Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is an aggressive tumor with unpredictable behavior. Clinical parameters are not always accurate for predicting prognosis. miR-126 is differentially expressed in many cancers, including RCC, and is down-regulated in metastatic versus primary ccRCC. We assessed the prognostic significance of miR-126 in 264 primary ccRCCs. We also compared its expression in normal kidney, primary and metastatic ccRCC, and RCC subtypes. We validated our results on an independent set of 481 ccRCCs. miR-126 was down-regulated in metastatic versus primary tumors and in tumors of higher stage (P = 0.005) or higher grade (P = 0.002). miR-126 up-regulation was associated with significantly prolonged disease-free survival (P < 0.001) and overall survival (P = 0.015). For larger tumors (>4 cm), patients with higher miR-126 expression had significantly longer survival. Restoration of miR-126 expression decreased cellular migration and proliferation in RCC cell lines. The ccRCCs exhibited the highest miR-126 expression, and papillary RCCs exhibited the lowest expression. We identified a number of miR-126 targets and pathways that are involved in carcinogenesis, including the apoptosis signaling pathway. miR-126 is a promising prognostic marker in ccRCC that can distinguish between clear cell and papillary subtypes. In addition, miR-126 has potential therapeutic applications.

BACKGROUND The outcome of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is still unpredictable. Even with new targeted therapies, the average progression-free survival is dismal. Markers for early detection and progression could improve disease outcome. METHODS To identify efficient and hitherto unrecognized pathogenic factors of the disease, we performed a uniquely comprehensive pathway analysis and built a gene interaction network based on large publicly available data sets assembled from 28 publications, comprising a 3-prong approach with high-throughput mRNA, microRNA, and protein expression profiles of 593 ccRCC and 389 normal kidney samples. We validated our results on 2 different data sets of 882 ccRCC and 152 normal tissues. Functional analyses were done by proliferation, migration, and invasion assays following siRNA (small interfering RNA) knockdown. RESULTS After integration of multilevel data, we identified aryl-hydrocarbon receptor (AHR), grainyhead-like-2 (GRHL2), and KIAA0101 as new pathogenic factors. GRHL2 expression was associated with higher chances for disease relapse and retained prognostic utility after controlling for grade and stage [hazard ratio (HR), 3.47, P = 0.012]. Patients with KIAA0101-positive expression suffered worse disease-free survival (HR, 3.64, P &lt; 0.001), and in multivariate analysis KIAA0101 retained its independent prognostic significance. Survival analysis showed that GRHL2- and KIAA0101-positive patients had significantly lower disease-free survival (P = 0.002 and P &lt; 0.001). We also found that KIAA0101 silencing decreased kidney cancer cell migration and invasion in vitro. CONCLUSIONS Using an integrative system biology approach, we identified 3 novel factors as potential biomarkers (AHR, GRHL2 and KIAA0101) involved in ccRCC pathogenesis and not linked to kidney cancer before.

Our data point to miR-10b as a promising prognostic marker in ccRCC with potential therapeutic applications.

Objectives The pathology report serves as a crucial communication tool among a number of stakeholders. It can sometimes be challenging to understand. A communication barrier exists among pathologists, other clinicians, and patients when interpreting the pathology report, leaving both clinicians and patients less empowered when making treatment decisions. Miscommunication can lead to delays in treatment or other costly medical interventions. Methods In this review, we highlight miscommunication in pathology reporting and provide potential solutions to improve communication. Results Up to one-third of clinicians do not always understand pathology reports. Several causes of report misinterpretation include the use of pathology-specific jargon, different versions of staging or grading systems, and expressions indicative of uncertainty in the pathologist’s report. Active communication has proven to be crucial between the clinician and the pathologist to clarify different aspects of the pathology report. Direct communication between pathologists and patients is evolving, with promising success in proof-of-principle studies. Special attention needs to be paid to avoiding inaccuracy while trying to simplify the pathology report. Conclusions There is a need for active and adequate communication among pathologists, other clinicians, and patients. Clarity and consistency in reporting, quantifying the level of confidence in diagnosis, and avoiding misnomers are key steps toward improving communications.