Distribution of Vascular Patterns in Different Subtypes of Renal Cell Carcinoma. A Morphometric Study in Two Distinct Types of Blood Vessels
- 187 Downloads
To analyze the presence of mature and immature vessels as a prognostic factor in patients with renal cell carcinoma and propose a classification of renal cancer tumor blood vessels according to morphometric parameters. Tissue samples were obtained from 121 renal cell carcinoma patients who underwent radical nephrectomy. Staining with CD31 and CD34 was used to differentiate between immature (CD31+) and mature (CD34+) blood vessels. We quantified the microvascular density, microvascular area and different morphometric parameters: maximum diameter, minimum diameter, major axis, minor axis, perimeter, radius ratio and roundness. We found that the microvascular density was higher in CD31+ than CD34+ vessels, but CD34+ vessels were larger than CD31+ vessels, as well as being strongly correlated with the ISUP tumor grade. We also identified four vascular patterns: pseudoacinar, fascicular, reticular and diffuse. Pseudoacinar and fascicular patterns were more frequent in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (37.62 and 35.64% respectively), followed by reticular pattern (21.78%), while in chromophobe tumors the reticular pattern predominated (90%). The isolated pattern was present in all papillary tumors (100%). In healthy renal tissue, the pseudoacinar and isolated patterns were differentially found in the renal cortex and medulla respectively. We defined four distinct vascular patterns significantly related with the ISUP tumor grade in renal cell carcinomas. Further studies in larger series are needed in order to validate these results. Analysis of both mature and immature vessels (CD34+ and CD31+) provides additional information when evaluating microvascular density.
KeywordsClear cell renal cell carcinoma Papillary renal cell carcinoma Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma Microvascular density Microvascular area Morphometry CD31 CD34 Renal vascular patterns
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
We declare no conflict of interest.
- 4.Murphy WM, Grignon DG, Perlman EJ (2004) Tumors of the kidney, bladder, and related urinary structures. American Registry of Pathology, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 12.Kovacs G, Akhtar M, Beckwith BJ et al (1997) The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours. J Pathol 80:992–993Google Scholar
- 13.Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al (20015). EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma 2014 Update. Eur Urol 67(5): 913–924Google Scholar
- 17.Meert AP, Paesmans M, Martin B, Delmotte P, Berghmans T, Verdebout JM, Lafitte JJ, Mascaux C, Sculier JP (2002) The role of microvessel density on the survival of patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 87:694–701CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Ruiz-Saurí A, Valencia-Villa G, Romanenko A, Pérez J, García R, García H, Benavent J, Sancho-Tello M, Carda C, Llombart-Bosch A (2016) Influence of exposure to chronic persistent low-dose ionizing radiation on the tumor biology of clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. An Immunohistochemical and morphometric study of angiogenesis and vascular related factors. Pathol Oncol Res 22(4):807–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Anastassiou G, Duensing S, Steinhoff G, Zorn U, Grosse J, Dallmann I, Kirchner H, Ganser A, Atzpodien J (1996) Platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1 (PECAM-1): a potential prognostic marker involved in leukocyte infiltration of renal cell carcinoma. Oncology 53:127–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Rioux-Leclercq N, Epstein JI, Bansard JY, Turlin B, Patard JJ, Manunta A, Chan T, Ramee MP, Lobel B, Moulinoux JP (2001) Clinical significance of cell proliferation, microvessel density, and CD44 adhesion molecule expression in renal cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol 32:1209–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Cheng S-H, Liu J-M, Liu Q-Y, Luo D-Y, Liao B-.H, Li H, Wang K-J (2014). Prognostic role of microvessel density in patients with renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 7(9): 5855–5863Google Scholar