Prognostic implications and diagnostic significance of TFE3 rearrangement in renal cell carcinoma
- PMID: 39470841
- PMCID: PMC11522134
- DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05290-w
Prognostic implications and diagnostic significance of TFE3 rearrangement in renal cell carcinoma
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the impact of TFE3 rearrangement, analyzing clinicopathological features that influence renal cell carcinoma (RCC) recurrence, and clarify the role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining in diagnosis.
Methods: We screened patients diagnosed of clear cell RCC (ccRCC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed on all TFE3 positive IHC tumors. Clinicopathological and survival features were collected for analysis.
Results: Out of 695 patients treated for renal tumors, 478 (68.7%) were ccRCC and 22 were suspected of TFE3 rearrangement based on IHC. Subsequent testing revealed 8 (1.15%) were positive in the FISH test (TFE3-rearranged-RCC) and 14 (2.01%) tested negative. No significant differences were noted in general characteristics among the three groups, except for age, TFE3-rearranged-RCC were younger than ccRCC (median age, 49 vs. 58 years, p=0.02). TFE3-rearranged-RCC exhibited a significant higher recurrence rate compared to ccRCC (50% vs 18.8%) and multivariate analysis revealed that TFE3 rearrangement, along with tumor size and metastasis, was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence (HR=4.6; 95% CI 1.1-21.2; p=0.05). Survival analysis demonstrated a significant shorter PFS (progression-free survival) for TFE3-rearranged-RCC compared to ccRCC.
Conclusions: TFE3 rearrangement is an independent prognostic factor for recurrence and contributes to a worse PFS, suggesting the necessity of careful follow-up. Diagnosis should be confirmed using FISH due to low specificity of IHC. Further studies are needed to confirm TFE3 IHC staining as a prognostic factor.
Keywords: Fluorescence in situ hybridization; Prognosis; Renal cell carcinoma; TFE3; TFE3-rearranged-RCC.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Argani P (2015) MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma. Semin Diagn Pathol 32:103–113. 10.1053/j.semdp.2015.02.003 - PubMed
-
- Moch H, Amin MB, Berney DM, Compérat EM, Gill AJ, Hartmann A et al (2022) The 2022 World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs—Part A: renal, Penile, and testicular tumours. Eur Urol 82:458–468. 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.06.016 - PubMed
-
- Klatte T, Streubel B, Wrba F, Remzi M, Krammer B, De Martino M et al (2012) Renal cell carcinoma associated with transcription factor E3 expression and Xp11.2 translocation: incidence, characteristics, and prognosis. Am J Clin Pathol 137:761–768. 10.1309/AJCPQ6LLFMC4OXGC - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
