ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2025
TFE3 immunohistochemistry in renal cell carcinomas: Does the clone really matter?
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTFE3 rearranged carcinomas constitute 5% of malignant tumours of the kidney in adults. TFE3 immunohistochemistry plays a crucial role in the diagnosis. TFE3 positivity in the appropriate histological context supports the diagnosis of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas. However, there isn't any standardized approach to performing and interpreting immunohistochemical staining.
methodsA total of 51 renal cell carcinomas are included in the study. In this study, we compared the expression profiles of two different anti-TFE3 antibody clones (MRQ37, Cell Marque, and IHC627, GeneAbTM) on renal cell carcinoma samples that have conflicting morphologies and assessed the overall performance of these clones to identify TFE3 rearranged carcinomas.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference in terms of immunohistochemical staining with TFE3-MRQ37 clone between TFE3 rearranged renal cell carcinomas and other subtypes, while no significant difference was found in staining with TFE3-IHC672. 47% of cases were stained with the TFE3-IHC672 clone and 9.8 % of cases were stained with the TFE3-MRQ37 clone at different staining intensities and proportions.
conclusionThe TFE3-MRQ37 clone is easier to interpret because of the absence of background staining and is more reliable in identifying TFE3 rearranged renal cell carcinomas. However, because of various sensitivity and specificity rates, and immunoreactivity in many subtypes of renal cell carcinomas, there is a need for a standardised approach for TFE3 immunohistochemistry for diagnostic use in TFE3-tRCCs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.