Show simple item record

Comparison of PAX-2, RCC antigen, and antiphosphorylated H2AX antibody (Γ-H2AX) in diagnosing metastatic renal cell carcinoma by fine-needle aspiration

dc.contributor.authorWasco, Matthew J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPu, Robert T.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-08-04T15:13:24Z
dc.date.available2009-08-12T18:32:18Zen_US
dc.date.issued2008-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationWasco, Matthew J.; Pu, Robert T. (2008). "Comparison of PAX-2, RCC antigen, and antiphosphorylated H2AX antibody (Γ-H2AX) in diagnosing metastatic renal cell carcinoma by fine-needle aspiration." Diagnostic Cytopathology 36(8): 568-573. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/60448>en_US
dc.identifier.issn8755-1039en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0339en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/60448
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=18618717&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractDiagnosing metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) can be challenging. Existing antibodies supporting a diagnosis of RCC, including CD10 and RCC-Ma, have problems with specificity and interpretation. In this report, we evaluate the use of two newer immunostains, PAX-2 and Γ-H2AX, which to our knowledge have not been studied in FNA material, in the diagnosis of metastatic RCC and in comparison with RCC-Ma. 29 cases of metastatic RCC were identified as well as a TMA of an additional 30 RCC cases. In the case cohort, RCC-Ma in a membranous pattern of staining identified 15/27 (56%) metastatic RCC, although interpretation was made difficult in many cases due to focality of staining and non-specific cytoplasmic staining. PAX-2 stained 23/29 (79%) of tumors in a nuclear stain, most strongly. Gamma-H2AX stained 19/26 (73%) of metastatic RCC strongly in a nuclear stain. In the TMA, strong, diffuse nuclear staining with Γ-H2AX was present in 22/30 RCC (73%). If weak staining was also included as positive, 26/30 (87%) were positive. PAX-2 stained RCC TMA with a lower percentage at 56%, including weaker staining intensity. Both PAX-2 and Γ-H2AX demonstrated patchy staining of normal renal tubules, PAX-2 to a greater extent. Both PAX-2 and Γ-H2AX are sensitive markers for the diagnosis of metastatic RCC, with improved ease of interpretation when compared with RCC-Ma. A combination of all 3 markers identified 87% of cases, and failure to stain for both PAX-2 and Γ-H2AX suggests against, but does not disprove, a diagnosis of RCC. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2008; 36: 568–573. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.en_US
dc.format.extent388156 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherLife and Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherCancer Research, Oncology and Pathologyen_US
dc.titleComparison of PAX-2, RCC antigen, and antiphosphorylated H2AX antibody (Γ-H2AX) in diagnosing metastatic renal cell carcinoma by fine-needle aspirationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPathologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumThe University of Michigan Medical School, Department of Pathology, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; The University of Michigan Medical School, Department of Pathology, 1301 Catherine, M4211 MSI Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0602en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumThe University of Michigan Medical School, Department of Pathology, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.identifier.pmid18618717en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/60448/1/20839_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dc.20839en_US
dc.identifier.sourceDiagnostic Cytopathologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.