Table 1. Crosstabulated of RSK4 immunostaining vs clinicalpathological features of all RCC cases.
| |
RSK4 |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinicalpathological features (n) | + | − | P-value |
| Gender |
|
|
0.34 |
| Male (75) | 44 (58.7%) | 31 (41.3%) | |
| Female (26) |
18 (69.2%) |
8 (30.8%) |
|
| Age (years) |
|
|
0.677 |
| ⩾55 (57) | 36 (63.2%) | 21 (36.8%) | |
| <55 (44) |
26 (59.1%) |
18 (40.9%) |
|
| Tumour size (cm) |
|
|
0.776 |
| >6.7 (38) | 24 (63.1%) | 14 (36.9%) | |
| <6.7 (63) |
38 (60.3%) |
25 (39.7%) |
|
| Histological type |
|
|
0.021a |
| ccRCC (47) | 29 (61.7%) | 18 (38.3%) | |
| PRCC (42) | 20 (47.6%) | 22 (52.4%) | |
| CRCC (6) | 1 (16.7%) | 5 (83.3%) | |
| CDC and medullary carcinoma (6) |
5 (83.3%) |
1 (16.7%) |
|
| pT stage |
|
|
<0.001b |
| pT1-pT2 (61) | 21 (34.4%) | 40 (65.6%) | |
| pT3-pT4 (40) |
32 (80%) |
8 (20%) |
|
| Fuhrman grade |
|
|
<0.001b |
| 1–2 (45) | 13 (28.9%) | 32 (71.1%) | |
| 3–4 (56) |
40 (71.4%) |
16 (28.6%) |
|
| Lymph node involved |
|
|
<0.001b |
| Yes (22) | 20 (90.9%) | 2 (9.1%) | |
| No (79) |
42 (53.2%) |
37 (46.8%) |
|
| Distant metastasis |
|
|
0.039b |
| Yes (8) | 7 (87.5%) | 1 (12.5%) | |
| No (93) | 46 (49.5%) | 47 (50.5%) | |
Abbreviations: CDC=collecting duct carcinoma; ccRCC=clear cell RCC; CRCC=chromophobe; PRCC=papillary RCC; RCC; RCC=renal cell carcinoma; RSK4=ribosomal s6 protein kinase 4.
P<0.05 is considered significant.
a
The expression of RSK4 varied in different RCC subtypes.
b
RSK4 expression was positively correlated with higher pT stage, higher Fuhrman grade, and presence of lymphnode and distant matastasis.