| ObjectiveTo study the clinicopathology features of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) and renal oncocytoma (RO), immunohistochemical analysis CK.7, CLDN7, Epcam, Vim four proteins and colloidal iron staining analysis eosinophilic mucopolysaccharides expression characteristics of these three tumors and their significance value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis.MethodsWe screening and selection 42 patients with CCRCC,24 patients with ChRCC and 17 patients with RO from the Frist Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Department of Pathology, retrospective analysis of clinical and pathological characteristics of the three tumors. Immunohistochemistry (EnVision two step method) was used to detect the expression characteristic of CK7, CILDN7, Epcam,and Vim in the three tumors. To investigate the eosinophilic mucopolysaccharides expression characteristic of Colloidal iron staining in the three tumors. The results used for statistical analysis to determine whether there is statistical significant.Result1) It is not difficult to diagnosis conventional CCRCC, classical ChRCC and typical RO, the challenge lies in lesions with prominent eosinophilic or oncocytic cell presence, especially the distinction between RO and ChRCC, can sometimes be difficult due to their overlapping clinical and morphological characteristics.2) The expression of CK7:The positive rate is 0% (0/42) in CCRCC,79.17%(19/24) in ChRCC and 23.53% (4/17) in RO, low or no expression in CCRCC and RO, high expression in ChRCC, the expression of CK7 was different between the three tumors and had significant values (P<0.05).3) The expression of CLDN7:The positive rate is 19.05% (8/42) in CCRCC,95.83% (23/24) in ChRCC and 41.18% (7/17) in RO, low expression in CCRCC and RO, the difference between CCRCC and RO was no significant values (P> 0.05), high expression in ChRCC, CLDN7 positive expression rate in ChRCC was significantly higher than CCRCC and RO, differentially expressed between ChRCC and the two tumors was significant values (P<0.05).4) The expression of Epcam:The positive rate is 28.57%(12/42) in CCRCC,91.67% (22/24) in ChRCC and 29.41% (5/17) in RO, low expression in CCRCC and RO, the difference between CCRCC and RO was no significant values (P> 0.05), high expression in ChRCC, Epcam positive expression rate in ChRCC was significantly higher than CCRCC and RO, differentially expressed between ChRCC and the two tumors was significant values (P<0.05).5) The expression of Vim:The positive rate is 59.57% (25/42) in CCRCC,8.33% (2/24) in ChRCC and 0% (0/17) in RO, low or no expression in ChRCC and RO, the difference between ChRCC and RO was no significant values (P> 0.05), high expression in CCRCC, Vim positive expression rate in CCRCC was significantly higher than ChRCC and RO, differentially expressed between CCRCC and the two tumors was significant values (P<0.05).6) The expression of Colloidal iron staining:The positive rate is 2.38%(1/42) in CCRCC,91.67% (22/24) in ChRCC and 17.65% (3/17) in RO, low expression in CCRCC and RO, the difference between CCRCC and RO was no significant values (P> 0.05), high expression in ChRCC, Colloidal iron staining positive expression rate in ChRCC was significantly higher than CCRCC and RO, differentially expressed between ChRCC and the two tumors was significant values (P<0.05).Conclusions:1) CK7, CLDN7 and Epcam low or no expression in CCRCC and RO, high expression in ChRCC, its seems to be valuable in the differentiation of ChRCC from CCRCC and RO.2) Vim low or no expression in ChRCC and RO, high expression in CCRCC, its seems to be valuable in the differentiation of CCRCC from ChRCC and RO.3) The panel of CK7, CLDN7, Epcam and Vim immunostains may be has some reference value in the differential diagnosis of CCRCC,ChRCC and RO.4) Colloidal iron stain can be used as a specific method of ChRCC of diagnosis and differential diagnosis. |
PDF Full Text Request