Premium
Increased expression of caveolin‐1 and microvessel density correlates with metastasis and poor prognosis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Author(s) -
Joo H.J.,
Oh D.K.,
Kim Y.S.,
Lee K.B.,
Kim S.J.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2004.04604.x
Subject(s) - cd34 , renal cell carcinoma , medicine , metastasis , pathology , caveolin 1 , stage (stratigraphy) , immunostaining , immunohistochemistry , nephrectomy , angiogenesis , carcinoma , cancer , biology , kidney , stem cell , paleontology , genetics
OBJECTIVE To investigate the relationship of caveolin‐1 expression and microvessel density (MVD), a reflection of angiogenesis, with metastasis and prognosis in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tissue sections of clear cell RCC from 67 patients who had undergone radical nephrectomy were stained immunohistochemically with specific antibodies against caveolin‐1 and CD34. Caveolin‐1 immunostaining was semi‐quantitatively estimated based on the proportion (percentage of positive cells) and intensity. MVD was determined with CD34‐stained slides. The expression pattern of caveolin‐1 and MVD was compared with the clinicopathological variables. RESULTS Eighteen patients had either synchronous or metachronous metastases and 11 died during the follow‐up. Caveolin‐1 intensity was significantly correlated with tumour size ( P = 0.005), TNM stage ( P = 0.028), M stage ( P = 0.012), grade ( P = 0.015), and metastasis (synchronous or metachronous; P < 0.001). The caveolin‐1 proportion ( P = 0.037) and MVD ( P = 0.011) were significantly correlated with metastasis. MVD was correlated with caveolin‐1 intensity ( r = 0.385, P = 0.001) and caveolin‐1 proportion ( r = 0.388, P = 0.001). There was no difference in the expression of caveolin‐1 and MVD between primary and metastatic sites. The survival of patients with higher caveolin‐1 intensity was significantly worse than that of patients with lower caveolin‐1 intensity. Multivariate analyses indicated that only M‐stage was an independent prognostic factor for cancer‐specific survival and caveolin‐1 expression was not an independent factor. CONCLUSIONS Increased expression of caveolin‐1 and MVD is associated with metastasis and a worse prognosis in clear cell RCC. Caveolin‐1 expression is correlated with MVD. These results suggest that caveolin‐1 may be important in the progression of clear cell RCC and angiogenesis may be affected by caveolin‐1 during the progression of RCC.