↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Acquired Cystic Disease-associated Renal Cell Carcinoma (ACD-RCC)

Overview of attention for article published in The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Acquired Cystic Disease-associated Renal Cell Carcinoma (ACD-RCC)
Published in
The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, September 2018
DOI 10.1097/pas.0000000000001091
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher G Przybycin, Holly L Harper, Jordan P Reynolds, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Jane K Nguyen, Angela Wu, Ankur R Sangoi, Peter S Liu, Saleem Umar, Rohit Mehra, Xiaochun Zhang, Roni M Cox, Jesse K McKenney

Abstract

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is known to be higher in patients with end-stage renal disease, including those with acquired cystic kidney disease due to dialysis. Acquired cystic disease (ACD)-associated RCC was recently incorporated into the 2016 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Tract as a distinct entity and is reportedly the most common RCC arising in end-stage renal disease. In this study, we sought to further describe clinicopathologic findings in a large series of ACD-RCC, emphasizing histologic features, immunophenotype, clinical outcome, and patterns of disease spread. We collected 40 previously unpublished cases of ACD-RCC with mean clinical follow-up of 27 months (median, 19 mo; range, 1 to 126 mo). Mean tumor size was 2.7 cm (median, 2.4 cm), and 32 tumors (80%) were confined to the kidney (pT stage less than pT3a). International Society of Urological Pathology grade was 3 in 37 cases (92.5%), grade 2 in 1 case (2.5%), and grade 4 in 2 cases (5%). Architectural variability among ACD-RCC was common, as 39 cases (98%) showed varying combinations of tubular, cystic, solid, and/or papillary growth. ACD-RCC frequently occurred in association with other renal tumor subtypes within the same kidney, including papillary RCC (14 patients), papillary adenomas (7 cases), clear cell papillary RCC (5 cases), clear cell RCC (1 case), and RCC, unclassified type (1 case). A previously undescribed pattern of perinephric and renal sinus adipose tissue involvement by dilated epithelial cysts with minimal or absent intervening capsule or renal parenchyma was identified in 20 cases (50%); these cysts were part of the tumor itself in 5 cases (25%) and were part of the non-neoplastic acquired cystic change in the background kidney in the remaining 15 cases (75%). Of the 24 cases (60%) with tissue available for immunohistochemical stains, 19 (79%) were positive for PAX8, 20 (83%) showed negative to patchy expression of cytokeratin 7, and 24 (100%) were both positive for AMACR and negative for CD117. Fumarate hydratase expression was retained in all tumors, including those with nuclear features resembling fumarate hydratase-deficient RCCs. Of the 36 patients (90%) with available follow-up information, 4 (11%) experienced adverse events: 2 patients developed a local recurrence, 1 patient experienced multiple visceral metastases and subsequently died of disease, and 1 patient developed metastases to regional lymph nodes only. One local recurrence and the lymph node only metastasis both had an unusual, exclusively cystic pattern of growth. In summary, we present the largest clinicopathologic series of ACD-RCC to date and describe previously unreported cystic patterns of local soft tissue involvement and recurrence/metastases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 7 28%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,229,345
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
#284
of 3,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,894
of 345,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
#8
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.