Fluorescence in situ hybridization as an adjunct tool in the diagnosis of primary and metastatic renal cell carcinoma in fine needle aspiration specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the role of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in the diagnosis of primary renal neoplasms and lesions suspicious for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Consecutive fine-needle aspiration biopsies (FNAB) of 39 renal masses and 41 metastatic tumours suspicious for renal cell origin were assessed with an immunohistochemical panel for CK7, RCC antigen, CD10, AMACR, PAX8, vimentin, and CD117. In addition, FISH was performed using probes for chromosomes 1p, 3p, 7, 17, X, and Y. A total of 31 of 39 primary renal masses and 33 of 41 metastatic tumors suspicious for renal origin demonstrated typical cytological and immunohistochemical (IHC) features of subtypes of renal neoplasms (40 clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 20 papillary RCC, and 4 renal oncocytomas). FISH analysis of 15 randomly selected cases each of primary and metastatic lesions revealed chromosomal abnormalities consistent with the diagnosis in 73% of these cases. Of 8 primary renal masses demonstrating atypical microscopic features and noncontributory IHC profiles, FISH was helpful in subtyping 5 (62%) of these lesions (2 clear cell RCC, 1 solid variant of oncocytic papillary RCC, 1 mixed clear cell and papillary RCC, and 1 chromophobe RCC with papillary architecture). Of 8 metastatic tumors clinically suspicious for renal cell origin and supportive, but nondiagnostic IHC, FISH revealed supportive chromosomal changes in 6 (75%) cases. In conclusion FISH analysis on FNAB material, even with limited tissue, may be contributory to the diagnosis and subtyping of RCC in diagnostically challenging biopsies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".