Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Volltext verfügbar? / Dokumentlieferung
doi:10.22028/D291-37696
Title: | cMET : a prognostic marker in papillary renal cell carcinoma? |
Author(s): | 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 |
Language: | English |
Title: | Human Pathology |
Volume: | 121 |
Pages: | 1-10 |
Publisher/Platform: | Elsevier |
Year of Publication: | 2022 |
Free key words: | cMET Papillary renal cell carcinoma Prognosis Survival Outcome |
DDC notations: | 610 Medicine and health |
Publikation type: | Journal Article |
Abstract: | 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. |
DOI of the first publication: | 10.1016/j.humpath.2021.12.007 |
URL of the first publication: | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004681772100215X |
Link to this record: | urn:nbn:de:bsz:291--ds-376967 hdl:20.500.11880/34101 http://dx.doi.org/10.22028/D291-37696 |
ISSN: | 0046-8177 |
Date of registration: | 25-Oct-2022 |
Faculty: | M - Medizinische Fakultät |
Department: | M - Urologie und Kinderurologie |
Professorship: | M - Prof. Dr. Michael Stöckle |
Collections: | SciDok - Der Wissenschaftsserver der Universität des Saarlandes |
Files for this record:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in SciDok are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.