Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  79 148 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 79 148 Next Page
Page Background

Platinum Priority – Editorial

Referring to the article published on pp. 71–78 of this issue

Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Family Portrait

Ronan Flippot

a ,

Eva Compe´rat

b ,

Nizar M. Tannir

c ,

Gabriel G. Malouf

a , *

a

Department of Medical Oncology, Pitie´-Salpeˆtrie`re Hospital, AP-HP, University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris, France;

b

Department of Pathology, Tenon

Hospital, AP-HP, University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris, France;

c

Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,

TX, USA

Papillary renal cell carcinomas (pRCCs) are a diverse family

of tumors with mysteries awaiting to be unraveled. PRCCs

account for up to 15% of renal cell carcinomas and share a

common origin with the more frequent clear-cell subtype,

arising from the proximal nephron

[1]

. PRCCs can be divided

into two established histological subtypes, type 1 pRCCs,

which bear recurrent oncogenic

MET

alterations, and type

2 pRCCs, which represent a wide range of diseases including

hereditary cancer syndromes such as germline mutations of

FH

[2]

. From a histological point of view, pathologists are

aware that type 2 pRCCs are a heterogeneous group that will

probably have to be divided into different entities in the

future. This is probably not possible with only morphologi-

cal tools, with integration of molecular findings also

required. An important and intriguing element of pRCCs

is a distinct evolution between indolent localized tumors

and aggressive metastatic disease, with no biological basis

for this difference identified to date

[3] .

Treatments

targeting the VEGF pathway and mTOR inhibitors have

produced modest benefit in unselected patients with

metastatic disease

[4,5]

. Thus, molecular profiling of pRCCs

represent a unique opportunity to better understand the

oncogenic mechanisms responsible for such diverse pre-

sentations, and will help in the design of rational therapies

based on relevant targets in human tissue.

The cancer genome atlas (TCGA) effort is the first global

attempt at a broader assessment of pRCC ontogeny

[6]

. Along with confirmation of

MET

alterations in

>

80%

of type 1 pRCCs, it revealed that type 2 RCCs encompassed

multiple diseases, with three independent subgroups that

differ according to their prognosis, molecular alterations,

and methylation profiles. Notably, TCGA uncovered

multiple molecular alterations associated with type

2 pRCCs, including dysregulation of cell cycle genes and

the

NRF2-ARE

pathway, as well as mutations in chromatin-

remodeling genes and the Hippo signaling pathway; a

CpG islands methylator phenotype (CIMP) was also

observed in cases with

FH

mutation, often associated

with young age and poor outcome in the context of

hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma

syndrome (HLRCC)

[7]

. These data improved our under-

standing of pRCCs, but encompassed mostly localized

tumors (97%), which may not be representative of

metastatic disease.

In this issue of

European Urology

, Pal et al

[8]

take a bold

step towards molecular characterization of advanced pRCC

via targeted sequencing of 315 genes in tumors from

169 patients, of whom 60% had stage IV disease. Most of

their findings are in line with TCGA highlights, but shed

light on pivotal issues that characterize metastatic disease.

MET

is yet again a central oncogenic alteration in type

1 pRCCs, with mutations in 20% and amplifications in 13% of

cases. These

MET

alterations in one-third of the patients

compare to

>

80% with

MET

alterations in the TCGA data set.

Indeed, Pal et al chose to consider copy number alterations

(CNAs) with only high-level

MET

amplifications (

>

6). While

this choice might ultimately be a more relevant marker in

predicting the efficacy of MET inhibitors, it will have to be

validated in prospective trials. What we also learned is that

the ontogeny of type 2 pRCC might share similarities with

type 1 pRCC. Indeed, both subtypes exhibit alterations in

cell cycle genes

CDKN2A/B

,

TERT

,

RAS/RAF

signaling, the DNA

damage pathway, and the mTOR pathway with comparable

frequency. Above all, we still have to understand whether

type 2 pRCCs encompass similar entities or multiple

diseases. The answers might come from dedicated studies

E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 7 9 – 8 0

ava ilable at

www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage:

www.eu ropeanurology.com

DOI of original article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.05.033

.

* Corresponding author. Department of Medical Oncology, Pitie´-Salpeˆtrie`re Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de l’Hoˆpital, 75013 Paris, France.

E-mail address:

gabriel.malouf@aphp.fr

(G.G. Malouf).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.004

0302-2838/

#

2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.