Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2017;2(12):e92688. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.92688.
Abstract
Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) typically shows ~7 chromosome losses (1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21) and ~31 exonic somatic mutations, yet carries ~5%–10% metastatic incidence. Since extensive chromosomal losses can generate proteotoxic stress and compromise cellular proliferation, it is intriguing how chRCC, a tumor with extensive chromosome losses and a low number of somatic mutations, can develop lethal metastases. Genomic features distinguishing metastatic from nonmetastatic chRCC are unknown. An integrated approach, including whole-genome sequencing (WGS), targeted ultradeep cancer gene sequencing, and chromosome analyses (FACETS, OncoScan, and FISH), was performed on 79 chRCC patients including 38 metastatic (M-chRCC) cases. We demonstrate that TP53 mutations (58%), PTEN mutations (24%), and imbalanced chromosome duplication (ICD, duplication of ≥ 3 chromosomes) (25%) were enriched in M-chRCC. Reconstruction of the subclonal composition of paired primary-metastatic chRCC tumors supports the role of TP53, PTEN, and ICD in metastatic evolution. Finally, the presence of these 3 genomic features in primary tumors of both The Cancer Genome Atlas kidney chromophobe (KICH) (n = 64) and M-chRCC (n = 35) cohorts was associated with worse survival. In summary, our study provides genomic insights into the metastatic progression of chRCC and identifies TP53 mutations, PTEN mutations, and ICD as high-risk features.
Authors
Jozefina Casuscelli, Nils Weinhold, Gunes Gundem, Lu Wang, Emily C. Zabor, Esther Drill, Patricia I. Wang, Gouri J. Nanjangud, Almedina Redzematovic, Amrita M. Nargund, Brandon J. Manley, Maria E. Arcila, Nicholas M. Donin, John C. Cheville, R. Houston Thompson, Allan J. Pantuck, Paul Russo, Emily H. Cheng, William Lee, Satish K. Tickoo, Irina Ostrovnaya, Chad J. Creighton, Elli Papaemmanuil, Venkatraman E. Seshan, A. Ari Hakimi, James J. Hsieh
Usage data is cumulative from June 2018 through June 2019.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 728 | 0 |
| 116 | 0 | |
| Figure | 148 | 0 |
| Table | 12 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 117 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 17 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,138 | 0 |
| Total Views | 1,138 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
