Article Text

PDF
Trisomy 7 and 17 mark papillary renal cell tumours irrespectively of variation of the phenotype
  1. I Balint1,
  2. A Szponar1,
  3. A Jauch2,
  4. G Kovacs1
  1. 1
    Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Medical Faculty, Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, Germany
  2. 2
    Institute of Human Genetics, Medical Faculty, Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Gyula Kovacs, Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Medical Faculty, Ruprecht-Karls-University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 325, Room 003, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany; gyula.kovacs{at}urz.uni-heidelberg.de

Abstract

Background: Papillary renal cell tumours (RCTs) have been described as a genetic entity. Recently, papillary RCTs have been divided into small (type 1) and large (type 2) cell tumours. Subsequent DNA analyses have resulted in controversial data regarding putative genetic changes marking type 1 and type 2 tumours.

Aim: The aim of this study was to improve the original description that papillary RCT is a genetic entity regardless of the phenotypic variation.

Methods: DNA from 163 papillary RCTs, including 82 multiplex tumours from eight hereditary cases, was analysed for copy number changes by chromosomal comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) and/or for allelic changes at chromosomes 7 and 17 by microsatellite analysis. The results of the genetic analysis were compared with the cytological characteristics of the tumours.

Results: The results showed alterations of chromosomes 7 and 17 at similar frequencies in papillary RCTs with characteristics ranging from small to large cell, nuclear grade 1 to 3, and 3 mm to 16 cm diameter.

Conclusion: Trisomies of chromosomes 7 and 17 are specific genetic alterations in papillary RCTs irrespective of their size, grade and cellular differentiation.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Ko 841/30-1).

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.