A unifying concept in pathology
Create, Communicate, Collaborate
Skip Navigation LinksHome > Forum > Messages

Messages in this topic - RSS Forum home » Immunohistochemistry » AMACR staining

12/6/2009 9:56:53 PM

Pathpedia
Pathpedia
Administrator
Posts: 8
Although AMACR staining has been reported to be less frequent in clear cell renal cell carcinoma we have seen more than 50% of our cases of clear cell RCC to be positive. May be it is common in this type of RCC. What has been the experience of other people?
Permalink
1/16/2011 4:57:13 PM

tedpath
tedpath
Posts: 1
I am new to this site. To respond to your query, this site states 43% of clear cell renal ca is positive for AMACR, though the figure may be close to yours, based on one of the 4 references, the LIN et al study which reported 68% of 70 clear cell tumors. two of the others, showed 25% in both (and usually weak or focal) and the 4th reference focused on a small number of papillary renal carcinomas with clear cell change. there are perhaps other studies with large enough numbers that have not been included here. these differences likely relate to differences in technique and/or clone used, definitions of what constitutes positive cutoffs in each, and perhaps classification of a subset of tumors based on H and E alone. Most reviews I have seen in IHC in renal tumors do not give specific numbers or percentages for each marker and tumor type and many state that clear cell RCC is negative for AMACR which is not the case. these are of course issues that permeate through much of iHC studies reported and highlight the need for a good panel of appropriate markers for most differential diagnoses. I do not have a large enough database studies at my institution. Mahul Amin may be amongst the best experts in this area. I might be able to look up his talk from the IHC course a few years ago and get back to you with more specifics. My work e-mail is richard.eisen@greenwichhospital.org if you wish to follow up.


Regards, R. Eisen
Permalink
2/1/2011 11:13:08 PM

Pathpedia
Pathpedia
Administrator
Posts: 8
Thanks for your comments and sorry for my belated response. The website did not allow me to log in to the forum. I had to complain to fix the issue and it took some time to fix it. Anyway, I notified the pathologists at pathpedia.com of your comments and they found two more references not previously entered. With the addition of two new references the postivity rate in conventional renal cell carcinoma based on 6 references is 39%, close to the previous number. I still think AMACR cannot be used to differentiate between papillary RCC and conventional RCC. Would you agree with me on that? I am attaching two references. Thanks.
edited by Buddy on 2/1/2011
edited by Buddy on 2/1/2011

Permalink