PMC3195365_01
(a) shows T1-weighted images, (b) shows T2-weighted images, and (c) shows T1-weighted and fat suppression images on MRI. The giant tumor was T1 low intensity and T2 high intensity, but the small tumor was T1 high intensity, and with a changed low signal in fat suppression (long arrow). The right kidney was involved and pushed aside (small arrow).
UROLOGY2011-261735.001.jpg
PMC3195365_01_UROLOGY2011-261735.001.jpg
fig1
T1-low intensity and T2-high intensity, but the small tumor was T1-high intensity, with a changed low signal in fat suppression (Figure 1). This indicated that the small tumor was mainly fat-containing, and the giant tumor appeared to be mainly composed of mucinous tissue.
(a) shows resected mass and (b) shows two component of tumor as determined by CT and MRI after fixation. Macroscopically, the resected mass weight was 8.5 kg. The giant tumor was white, and the small one was yellowish (arrow: right kidney).
UROLOGY2011-261735.002.jpg
PMC3195365_01_UROLOGY2011-261735.002.jpg
fig2
Upon gross examination, the tumor was well circumscribed and encapsulated and weighed 8.5 kg (Figure 2).
(a)-(c) show the high-power-magnification microscopic specimen of the small tumor, and (d)-(f) show those of the giant tumor. The two tumors had different expressions of S-100 protein (b), (e), but many MDM2 red signals were recognized in nuclei of both tumors (c), (f) (Green: chromosome 12).
UROLOGY2011-261735.003.jpg
PMC3195365_01_UROLOGY2011-261735.003.jpg
fig3
Immunohistochemical analysis revealed that the cells were strongly stained by S-100 protein which is a marker for fat (Figure 3). Consequently, we focused attention on FISH analysis, using specific probes for the MDM2 gene (Figure 3).