No abstract

Pax 2, expressed by metanephric mesenchyme is vital for renal tubule formation and development. Carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX) is implicated in cell proliferation, adhesion, and invasion. Data regarding expression in renal epithelial tumors other than clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are limited, conflicting, from tissue microarrays, and do not encompass the entire spectrum or novel uncommon variants. Conventional sections from 200 renal tumors comprising clear cell RCC (n=30), oncocytoma (n=17), papillary RCC (n=30), chromophobe RCC (n=50), urothelial carcinomas (n=30), collecting duct carcinomas (n=5), renal tumors with Xp11.2 translocation (n=15), tubulocystic carcinoma (n=19), and mucinous tubular spindle cell carcinoma (n=4) were immunostained for Pax 2 and CA IX. Clear cell RCC (28/30, 93%), oncocytoma (17/17, 100%), papillary RCC (16/30, 53%), and mucinous tubular spindle cell carcinoma (3/4, 75%) demonstrated nuclear immunoreactivity with Pax 2, whereas the other subtypes were nonreactive. Clear cell RCC (30/30, 100%), urothelial carcinoma (27/30, 90%), papillary RCC (17/30, 57%), and renal tumors with Xp11.2 translocation (6/15, 40%) exhibited membranous immunoreactivity with CA IX, whereas the other subtypes were nonreactive. This suggests potential diagnostic utility of Pax 2 in distinction of (i) oncocytoma (positive) from chromophobe RCC (negative), (ii) clear cell RCC and papillary RCC (positive) from renal tumors with Xp11.2 translocation (negative), and (iii) high-grade clear cell RCC (positive) from urothelial carcinoma (negative). CA IX expression has potential diagnostic implications including (i) clear cell RCC (positive) versus chromophobe RCC (negative) and (ii) urothelial carcinoma (positive) versus collecting duct carcinoma (negative). These antibodies may reliably discriminate between clinically significant subtypes of RCC with overlapping cytoarchitectural features.

Background: The androgen receptor (AR) has emerged as a potential therapeutic target for AR-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, conflicting reports regarding AR’s prognostic role in TNBC are putting its usefulness in question. Some studies conclude that AR positivity indicates a good prognosis in TNBC, whereas others suggest the opposite, and some show that AR status has no significant bearing on the patients’ prognosis. Methods: We evaluated the prognostic value of AR in resected primary tumors from TNBC patients from six international cohorts {US (n = 420), UK (n = 239), Norway (n = 104), Ireland (n = 222), Nigeria (n = 180), and India (n = 242); total n = 1407}. All TNBC samples were stained with the same anti-AR antibody using the same immunohistochemistry protocol, and samples with ≥1% of AR-positive nuclei were deemed AR-positive TNBCs. Results: AR status shows population-specific patterns of association with patients’ overall survival after controlling for age, grade, population, and chemotherapy. We found AR-positive status to be a marker of good prognosis in US and Nigerian cohorts, a marker of poor prognosis in Norway, Ireland and Indian cohorts, and neutral in UK cohort. Conclusion: AR status, on its own, is not a reliable prognostic marker. More research to investigate molecular subtype composition among the different cohorts is warranted.

A single injection of hydroxyprogesterone before surgery did not improve outcomes in all women with OBC. This intervention showed significant improvement in node-positive women that may be considered hypothesis generating. If replicated in other studies, this could be a simple and inexpensive intervention, especially in developing countries where the incidence of lymph node metastasis is high.