A clinicopathological and molecular series of five TFEB-altered renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases: highlighting an aggressive subset of TFEB-rearranged RCC concomitant with TFEB amplification/gene copy number gains

The classification of TFEB-altered renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been revised to include TFEB-rearranged RCC and TFEB-amplified RCC in the 2022 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System. Given the wide spectrum of TFEB-altered RCC in terms of morphology and clinical behavior, an accurate diagnosis is challenging yet crucial, particularly in aggressive cases. Moreover, the concurrence of TFEB gene rearrangement and amplification/gene copy number (GCN) gains was also observed, but there was limited knowledge of these cases. We presented three TFEB-rearranged RCC cases, one TFEB-amplified RCC case, and one case of concomitant TFEB-rearranged and -amplified RCC, comparing the similarities and differences among these three subgroups. Furthermore, we summarized the clinicopathological and molecular features of TFEB-rearranged RCC concomitant with TFEB amplification/GCN gains from the literature and the present study. TFEB-altered RCCs exhibit significant heterogeneity in morphology and clinical behavior while displaying similar immunohistochemical profiles, including positive staining for Melan-A, PAX8, and CD117, and negative staining for CK7. A typical biphasic "rosette-like" morphology has been observed in a proportion of TFEB-rearranged RCC concomitant with TFEB amplification/GCN gains, which has been noted in TFEB-rearranged RCC, but not in cases with only TFEB amplification. Notably, TFEB-rearranged RCCs concomitant with TFEB amplification/GCN gains tend to be aggressive, in contrast to the often indolent nature of TFEB-rearranged cases, irrespective of the extent of TFEB gene copy increase. Therefore, a TFEB FISH assay is essential for unclassified RCC cases that exhibit melanocytic marker expression, and fluorescent signals should be counted and interpreted acurrately.

A rare case of TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified renal cell carcinoma diagnosed by whole-exome sequencing: clinicopathological and genetic feature report and literature review

BACKGROUND

TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rare and difficult to diagnose, with diverse histological patterns and immunohistochemical and poorly defined molecular genetic characteristics.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of a 63-year-old male admitted in 2017 with complex histomorphology, three morphological features of clear cell, eosinophilic and papillary RCC and resembling areas of glomerular and tubular formation. The immunophenotype also showed a mixture of CD10 and P504s. RCC with a high suspicion of collision tumors was indicated according to the 2014 WHO classification system; no precise diagnosis was possible. The patient was diagnosed at a different hospital with poorly differentiated lung squamous cell carcinoma one year after RCC surgery. We exploited molecular technology advances to retrospectively investigate the patient's molecular genetic alterations by whole-exome sequencing. The results revealed a 6p21 amplification in VEGFA and TFEB gene acquisition absent in other RCC subtypes. Clear cell, papillary, chromophobe, TFE3-translocation, eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC were excluded. Strong TFEB and Melan-A protein positivity prompted rediagnosis as TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified RCC as per 2022 WHO classification. TMB-L (low tumor mutational load), CCND3 gene acquisition and MRE11A and ATM gene deletion mutations indicated sensitivity to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor combinations and the FDA-approved targeted agents Niraparib (Grade C), Olaparib (Grade C), Rucaparib (Grade C) and Talazoparib (Class C). GO (Gene Ontology) and KEGG enrichment analyses revealed major mutations and abnormal CNVs in genes involved in biological processes such as the TGF-β, Hippo, E-cadherin, lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy signaling pathways, biofilm synthesis cell adhesion substance metabolism regulation and others. We compared TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified with TFEB-translocated RCC; significant differences in disease onset age, histological patterns, pathological stages, clinical prognoses, and genetic characteristics were revealed.

CONCLUSION

We clarified the patient's challenging diagnosis and discussed the clinicopathology, immunophenotype, differential diagnosis, and molecular genetic information regarding TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified RCC via exome analysis and a literature review.

Prognosis and Clinicopathological Characters of Adult TFEB-Altered Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Single Center Experience of 18 Cases

INTRODUCTION

TFEB-altered renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a rare entity characterized by the rearrangement of the TFEB gene or TFEB amplified. The therapeutic implications and long-term survival of TFEB-altered RCC remain unclear, especially for metastatic cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current study initially enrolled 7604 consecutive RCC patients at our center and a total of 248 patients were selected for FISH and immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis. Eventually, eighteen TFEB-altered RCC patients were identified. We then reported the clinical, morphological, IHC, and radiological features of these cases.

RESULTS

The median age at initial diagnosis was 45 years, ranging from 18 years to 66 years. The majority of the TFEB-altered RCC patients were male (61.1%), with localized disease (T1-2N0M0, 77.8%). The median split TFEB fluorescent signal was 24%, ranging from 15%-80%. The morphological characteristics of TFEB-altered RCC were variable, with acinar, papillary, solid, or nest patterns. IHC and magnetic resonance imaging features of TFEB-altered RCC were nonspecific. Nine patients with localized disease received partial nephrectomy and five patients with localized disease received radical nephrectomy. During the median follow-up of 67 months, no signs of recurrence or metastasis were found in these patients. Two patients had distant metastasis and received axitinib plus PD-1 immunotherapy. One of them died at 40-month follow-up and another still alive at 88-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

TFEB-altered RCC is an extremely rare variant, exhibited mixed morphological characteristics. The radiological feature lack specificity, resembling clear cell RCC or papillary RCC. Genetic analyses including FISH analysis is crucial in the diagnosis of TFEB-altered RCC. For localized TFEB-altered RCC, both radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy conferred satisfactory prognosis. For metastatic TFEB-altered RCC, immunotherapy-based drug combinations could be a promising treatment strategy.

Primary retroperitoneal renal cell carcinoma associated with transcription EB gene fusion

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with the distinct type of t(6;11) (p21;q12) translocation (transcription factor EB, TFEB) is a rare neoplasm. It is even less when talks about primary retroperitoneal TFEB RCCs. To our knowledge, no previous literature has been reported about this kind of RCCs. In this article, we report a case of primary retroperitoneal renal cell carcinoma associated with transcription EB gene fusion.

METHODS

A 73-year-old male patient presented with a retroperitoneal mass for more than one month.

RESULTS

Pathologically, the mass was soft and colorful, tumor cells showed a biphasic morphology characterized by nests of larger epithelioid cells surrounding intraluminal collections of smaller cells clustered around basement membrane materia. These tumor cells were positive for Pax-8, EMA, TFEB, CK, P504S, Vimentin and CD10 on immunohistochemical stain, and positive for TFEB on fluorescence in situ hybridization assay.

CONCLUSIONS

We reported the first case of primary retroperitoneal renal cell carcinoma associated with transcription EB gene fusion. The pathological feature of the case we reported was very typical. The best treatment at presentation is the total resection. Long-term follow-up study is needed in order to acquire better diagonitic quality and fulfill diagnostic requirements.

Exploration of clinicopathological features of rearranged renal cell carcinoma and TFE3, TFEB, and ALK staining performance in renal entities

Rearranged renal cell carcinomas (RCC) are rare types of kidney cancer. The clinicopathological features of rearranged RCC require further validation. The pathological diagnosis usually depends on immunohistochemistry and molecular analysis. This study aimed to explore the expression features of anti-TFE3, TFEB, and ALK in different renal entities. In addition, we collected thirty-six TFE3-rearranged RCC, two TFEB-altered RCC, and one ALK-rearranged RCC to explore their clinicopathological features. We observed that TFE3 can sometimes be weakly expressed in non-TFE3-rearranged RCC. TFE3-rearranged RCC usually exhibited strong TFE3 expression. However, clear cell RCC and FH-deficient RCC also displayed strong TFE3 expression. TFEB also can be weakly expressed in clear cell RCC. However, ALK IHC showed a relatively high specificity and was negative for all non-ALK-rearranged RCC. The ALK-rearranged RCC was analyzed using next generation sequencing to explore gene alterations, and we identified a novel gene partner, SLIT1. ALK-rearranged RCC appears to have eosinophilic cytoplasm. Tumor cells with clear cytoplasm may exclude this diagnosis. Psammomatous bodies (22/38) and pattern multiplicity (35/38) were observed in more than half of the patients. In conclusion, weak TFE3 expression did not indicate TFE3 rearrangement. Strong TFE3 expression had a higher value for indicating TFE3-rearranged RCC, although other entities can also exhibit a strong pattern. Young age combined with morphological features (psammomatous calcification and pattern multiplicity) may indicate the diagnosis of rearranged RCC.

Tumors masquerading as type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma: pathologists' ever-expanding differential diagnosis for a heterogeneous group of entities

Although papillary renal cell carcinoma has historically been classified as either type 1 or type 2, data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has demonstrated significant genomic heterogeneity in tumors classified as "type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma" (T2PRCC). Papillary renal cell carcinoma is expected to have a favorable clinical course compared to clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC). However, tumors with poor outcome more similar to CCRCC were included in the T2PRCC cohort studied by the TCGA. The differential diagnosis for T2PRCC includes a variety of other renal tumors, including aggressive entities such as TFE3 translocation-associated renal cell carcinoma, TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma, high-grade CCRCC, and collecting duct carcinoma. Accurate classification of these tumors is important for prognostication and selection of therapy.

Comprehensive study of 9 novel cases of TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma: an aggressive tumor with frequent PDL1 expression

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

First described in 2014, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with TFEB amplification (6p21) is a rare molecular subgroup whose diagnosis is challenging. The prognosis and therapeutic implications remain unclear.

METHODS

We report here the clinical, histological, immunohistochemical and genetic features of 9 novel cases. The pathological and immunohistochemical features were centrally reviewed by expert uropathologists. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) confirmed the diagnosis and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was performed to determine quantitative genomic alterations. We also performed an exhaustive review of the literature and compiled our data.

RESULTS

TFEB-amplified RCC were locally advanced with initial lymph node involvement in one case and liver metastasis in another case. They were high-grade eosinophilic tumors with papillary/pseudopapillary architecture, frequent positivity for melanocytic markers and frequent PDL1 expression. FISH demonstrated high-level TFEB amplification in 6 cases. One case showed concomitant TFEB translocation. CGH analysis identified complex alterations with frequent losses of 1p, 2q, 3p, 6p, and frequent 6p and 8q gains. VEGFA co-amplification was identified in all cases with a lower level than TFEB. The prognosis was poor with five patients having lymph node or distant metastases.

CONCLUSION

TFEB-amplified RCC is a rare molecular subgroup with variable morphology whose diagnosis is confirmed by FISH analysis. The complex alterations identified by CGH are consistent with an aggressive clinical behavior. The co-amplification of VEGFA and the expression of PDL1 could suggest a potential benefit from antiangiogenics and targeted immunotherapy in combination for these aggressive tumors.

TFE3 and TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas: an immunohistochemical panel to differentiate from common renal cell neoplasms

TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas are characterized by translocations involving TFE3 and TFEB genes. Despite the initial description of typical morphology, their histological spectrum is wide, mimicking common subtypes of renal cell tumors. Thus, the diagnosis is challenging requiring the demonstration of the gene rearrangement, usually by FISH. However, this technique is limited in most laboratories and immunohistochemical TFE3/TFEB analysis is inconsistent. We sought to identify a useful immunohistochemical panel using the most common available markers to recognize those tumors. We performed an immunohistochemical panel comparing 27 TFE3-rearranged and 10 TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas to the most common renal cell tumors (150 clear cell, 100 papillary, 50 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas, 18 clear cell papillary renal cell tumors, and 50 oncocytomas). When dealing with neoplasms characterized by cells with clear cytoplasm, CA9 is a helpful marker to exclude clear cell renal cell carcinoma. GATA3, AMACR, and CK7 are useful to rule out clear cell papillary renal cell tumor. CK7 is negative in TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma and positive in papillary renal cell carcinoma, being therefore useful in this setting. Parvalbumin and CK7/S100A1 respectively are of paramount importance when TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma resembles oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Moreover, in TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma, cathepsin K and melanogenesis markers are constantly positive, whereas TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma stains for cathepsin K in roughly half of the cases, HMB45 in 8% and Melan-A in 22%. In conclusion, since TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma may mimic several histotypes, an immunohistochemical panel to differentiate them from common renal cell tumors should include cathepsin K, CA9, CK7, and parvalbumin.

Common Diagnostic Challenges and Pitfalls in Genitourinary Organs, With Emphasis on Immunohistochemical and Molecular Updates

CONTEXT.—

Lesions in the genitourinary (GU) organs, both benign and malignant, can demonstrate overlapping morphology, and practicing surgical pathologists should be aware of these potential pitfalls and consider a broad differential diagnosis for each specific type of lesion involving the GU organs. The following summary of the contents presented at the 6th Annual Chinese American Pathologists Association (CAPA) Diagnostic Course (October 10-11, 2020), supplemented with relevant literature review, exemplifies the common diagnostic challenges and pitfalls for mass lesions of the GU system of adults, including adrenal gland, with emphasis on immunohistochemical and molecular updates when relevant.

OBJECTIVE.—

To describe the common mass lesions in the GU system of adults, including adrenal gland, with emphasis on the diagnostic challenges and pitfalls that may arise in the pathologic assessment, and to highlight immunohistochemical workups and emerging molecular findings when relevant.

DATA SOURCES.—

The contents presented at the course and literature search comprise our data sources.

CONCLUSIONS.—

The diagnostic challenges and pitfalls that arise in the pathologic assessment of the mass lesions in the GU system of adults, including adrenal gland, are common. We summarize the contents presented at the course, supplemented with relevant literature review, and hope to provide a diagnostic framework to evaluate these lesions in routine clinical practice.

Cathepsin K: A Novel Diagnostic and Predictive Biomarker for Renal Tumors

Simple Summary

Our understanding of renal tumors has increased in the last years with the description of several novel entities. The expanding morphological spectrum complicates the pathologist’s diagnosis, often requiring immunohistochemical analysis. The role of cathepsin K immunoexpression is widened as a diagnostic tool in several renal tumors. This review describes the usefulness of cathepsin K in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms, highlighting the biological knowledge underpinning its expression. Moreover, cathepsin K seems to be a downstream marker of different genetic alterations, with a possible role as a predictive marker that may prospectively guide the development of therapeutic approaches as a molecular target.

Abstract

Cathepsin K is a papain-like cysteine protease with high matrix-degrading activity. Among several cathepsins, cathepsin K is the most potent mammalian collagenase, mainly expressed by osteoclasts. This review summarizes most of the recent findings of cathepsin K expression, highlighting its role in renal tumors for diagnostic purposes and as a potential molecular target. Indeed, cathepsin K is a recognized diagnostic tool for the identification of TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma, TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, and pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma. More recently, its expression has been observed in a subgroup of eosinophilic renal neoplasms molecularly characterized by TSC/mTOR gene mutations. Interestingly, both TSC mutations or TFE3 rearrangement have been reported in pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Therefore, cathepsin K seems to be a downstream marker of TFE3/TFEB rearrangement, TFEB amplification, and mTOR pathway activation. Given the established role of mTOR inhibitors as a pharmacological option in renal cancers, cathepsin K could be of use as a predictive marker of therapy response and as a potential target. In the future, uropathologists may implement the use of cathepsin K to establish a diagnosis among renal tumors with clear cells, papillary architecture, and oncocytic features.

Multifaceted activities of transcription factor EB in cancer onset and progression

Transcription factor EB (TFEB) represents an emerging player in cancer biology. Together with microphthalmia‐associated transcription factor, transcription factor E3 and transcription factor EC, TFEB belongs to the microphthalmia family of bHLH‐leucine zipper transcription factors that may be implicated in human melanomas, renal and pancreatic cancers. TFEB was originally described as being translocated in a juvenile subset of pediatric renal cell carcinoma; however, whole‐genome sequencing reported that somatic mutations were sporadically found in many different cancers. Besides its oncogenic activity, TFEB controls the autophagy‐lysosomal pathway by recognizing a recurrent motif present in the promoter regions of a set of genes that participate in lysosome biogenesis; furthermore, its dysregulation was found to have a crucial pathogenic role in different tumors by modulating the autophagy process. Other than regulating cancer cell‐autonomous responses, recent findings indicate that TFEB participates in the regulation of cellular functions of the tumor microenvironment. Here, we review the emerging role of TFEB in regulating cancer cell behavior and choreographing tumor–microenvironment interaction. Recognizing TFEB as a hub of network of signals exchanged within the tumor between cancer and stroma cells provides a fresh perspective on the molecular principles of tumor self‐organization, promising to reveal numerous new and potentially druggable vulnerabilities.

Autophagy and liver cancer

Autophagy is a highly conserved catabolic process that degrades cytosolic proteins and organelles via formation of autophagosomes that fuse with lysosomes to form autolysosomes, whereby autophagic cargos are degraded. Numerous studies have demonstrated that autophagy plays a critical role in the regulation of liver physiology and homeostasis, and impaired autophagy leads to the pathogenesis of various liver diseases such as viral hepatitis, alcohol associated liver diseases (AALD), non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases (NAFLD), and liver cancer. Recent evidence indicates that autophagy may play a dual role in liver cancer: inhibiting early tumor initiation while promoting progression and malignancy of already formed liver tumors. In this review, we summarized the progress of current understanding of how hepatic viral infection, alcohol consumption and diet-induced fatty liver diseases impair hepatic autophagy. We also discussed how impaired autophagy promotes liver tumorigenesis, and paradoxically how autophagy is required to promote the malignancy and progression of liver cancer. Understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying how autophagy differentially affects liver cancer development and progression may help to design better therapeutic strategies for prevention and treatment of liver cancer.

A Tale of 2 Morphologies: Diagnostic Pitfalls in TFEB-Associated Renal Cell Carcinomas, Including a Novel NEAT1-TFEB Fusion

AIMS

Translocation-associated renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) have been extensively subcharacterized in recent years, such that each is largely recognized by the 2016 World Health Organization as categorical neoplastic entities in the genitourinary tract. Those belonging to the t(6;11) family of tumors classically have a fusion between TFEB and MALAT1/α, and display a particular histomorphology. Specifically, they show a biphasic population of both small and large epithelioid cells, the smaller component of which surrounds basement membrane-type material. Despite this apt description, the tumors have variable morphology and mimic other RCCs including those with TFE3 translocations. Therefore, a high degree of suspicion is required to make the correct diagnosis.

METHODS

The 2 cases described in this article were of strikingly different appearance, and initially considered consistent with other non-translocation-associated renal tumors. These included clear cell RCC (CCRCC), perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), and other eosinophilic RCCs (mainly papillary RCC type 2).

RESULTS

Using RNA sequencing techniques, they were found to harbor distinct pathogenic rearrangements involving the TFEB gene, namely, fusions with CLTC and NEAT1 (the latter partnering heretofore never reported).

CONCLUSIONS

These alterations manifested in 2 notably dissimilar lesions, underscoring the importance of including this family of carcinomas in the differential of any renal neoplasm that does not display immunophenotypic characteristics consistent with its morphology.

Assessing Genomic Copy Number Alterations as Best Practice for Renal Cell Neoplasia: An Evidence-Based Review from the Cancer Genomics Consortium Workgroup

Renal cell neoplasia are heterogeneous with diverse histology, genetic alterations, and clinical behavior that are diagnosed mostly on morphologic features. The Renal Cell Neoplasia Workgroup of the Cancer Genomics Consortium systematically evaluated peer-reviewed literature on genomic studies of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, chromophobe RCC, and the translocation RCC involving TFE3, TFEB and MITF rearrangements, as well as benign oncocytoma, which together comprise about 95% of all renal cell neoplasia. The Workgroup curated recurrent copy number alterations (CNAs), copy-neutral loss-of-heterozygosity (cnLOH), rearrangements, and mutations, found in each subtype and assigned clinical relevance according to established criteria. In clear cell RCC, loss of 3p has a disease-initiating role and most likely also in progression with mutations detected in VHL and other genes mapped to this arm, and loss of 9p and/or 14q has well-substantiated prognostic utility. Gain of chromosomes 7 and 17 are hallmark CNAs of papillary RCC, but patterns of other CNAs as detected by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) afford sub-classification into Type 1 and 2 with prognostic value, and for further sub-stratification of Type 2. Inherent chromosome loss in chromophobe RCC as detected by CMA is useful for distinguishing the eosinophilic variant from benign oncocytoma which in contrast exhibits few CNAs or rearranged CCND1, but share mitochondrial DNA mutations. In morphologically atypical RCCs, rearrangement of TFE3 and TFEB should be considered in the differential diagnosis, portending an aggressive RCC subtype. Overall, this evidence-based review provides a validated role for assessment of CNAs in renal cell neoplasia in the clinical setting to assist in renal cell neoplasm diagnosis and sub-classification within subtypes that is integral to the management of patients, from small incidentally found renal masses to larger surgically resected specimens, and simultaneously identify the presence of key alterations portending outcome in malignant RCC subtypes.

TFEB Expression Profiling in Renal Cell Carcinomas: Clinicopathologic Correlations

TFEB is overexpressed in TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas as well as in renal tumors with amplifications of TFEB at 6p21.1. As recent literature suggests that renal tumors with 6p21.1 amplification behave more aggressively than those with rearrangements of TFEB, we compared relative TFEB gene expression in these tumors. This study included 37 TFEB-altered tumors: 15 6p21.1-amplified and 22 TFEB-rearranged (including 5 cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas data set). TFEB status was verified using a combination of fluorescent in situ hybridization (n=27) or comprehensive molecular profiling (n=13) and digital droplet polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify TFEB mRNA expression in 6p21.1-amplified (n=9) and TFEB-rearranged renal tumors (n=19). These results were correlated with TFEB immunohistochemistry. TFEB-altered tumors had higher TFEB expression when normalized to B2M (mean: 168.9%, n=28), compared with non-TFEB-altered controls (mean: 7%, n=18, P=0.005). Interestingly, TFEB expression in tumors with rearrangements (mean: 224.7%, n=19) was higher compared with 6p21.1-amplified tumors (mean: 51.2%, n=9; P=0.06). Of note, classic biphasic morphology was only seen in TFEB-rearranged tumors and when present correlated with 6.8-fold higher TFEB expression (P=0.00004). Our results suggest that 6p21.1 amplified renal tumors show increased TFEB gene expression but not as much as t(6;11) renal tumors. These findings correlate with the less consistent/diffuse expression of downstream markers of TFEB activation (cathepsin K, melan A, HMB45) seen in the amplified neoplasms. This suggests that the aggressive biological behavior of 6p21.1 amplified renal tumors might be secondary to other genes at the 6p21.1 locus that are co-amplified, such as VEGFA and CCND3, or other genetic alterations.

[MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas: Natural history, molecular features and multidisciplinary management]

MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas (tRCC) represent a rare subtype of renal cell carcinomas. These tumors have been introduced for the first time in the World Health Classification (WHO) classification of kidney cancers in 2004. tRCC are characterized by reccurent translocations involving members of the MiT family transcription factors, mainly TFE3 and TFEB. The estimated incidence of these tumors is ∼1-5 % among all renal cell carcinomas, with female prodominance. tRCC were initially described in children, and the spectrum has been expanded over time to encompass adolescents and adults. TFE3- and TFEB-rearranged RCC harbor characteristic clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features and fluorescent hybridization in situ is considered the gold standard for their diagnosis, although it has some limitations especially when the partners are located in the vicinity of TFE3. Nephron-sparing surgery is an efficient treatment of localized cases when achievable. In metastatic setting, targeted agents and immunotherapy showed modest efficacy, with response rates and median overall survival inferior to those observed in clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Management of tRCC necessite a multidisciplinary team and accrual in clinical trials have to be encouraged when possible. Novel biological insights are urgently awaited to better understand the mechanisms associated with kidney oncogenesis in this setting, and ultimately help to identify therapeutic targets.

MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas: A 15th anniversary update

Microphthalmia (MiT) family translocation renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are a heterogeneous category of renal tumors which all express MiT transcription factors, typically from chromosomal translocation and rarely from gene amplification. This tumor family has two major subtypes [i.e., Xp11 translocation RCC and t(6;11) RCC] and several related neoplasms (i.e., TFEB amplification RCC and melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancers). Increased understanding of the clinical, pathological, molecular and prognostic heterogeneity of these tumors, since their official recognition in 2004, provides the opportunity to identify prognostic biomarkers and to understand the reasons for tumor aggression. We will review the literature from the past 15 years and highlight the need for a greater understanding of the molecular mechanisms underpinning heterogeneous tumor behavior.

MiT Family Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma: from the Early Descriptions to the Current Knowledge

The new category of MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma has been included into the World Health Organization (WHO) classification in 2016. The MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma comprises Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma harboring TFE3 gene fusions and t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma harboring TFEB gene fusion. At the beginning, they were recognized in childhood; nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that these neoplasms can occur in adults as well. In the nineties, among Xp11 renal cell carcinoma, ASPL, PRCC, and SFPQ (PSF) were the first genes recognized as partners in TFE3 rearrangement. Recently, many other genes have been identified, and a wide spectrum of morphologies has been described. For this reason, the diagnosis may be challenging based on the histology, and the differential diagnosis includes the most common renal cell neoplasms and pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney. During the last decades, many efforts have been made to identify immunohistochemical markers to reach the right diagnosis. To date, staining for PAX8, cathepsin K, and melanogenesis markers are the most useful identifiers. However, the diagnosis requires the demonstration of the chromosomal rearrangement, and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) is considered the gold standard. The outcome of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma is highly variable, with some patients surviving decades with indolent disease and others dying rapidly of progressive disease. Despite most instances of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma having an indolent clinical course, a few published cases demonstrate aggressive behavior. Recently, renal cell carcinomas with TFEB amplification have been described in connection with t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma. Those tumors appear to be associated with a more aggressive clinical course. For the aggressive cases of MiT family translocation carcinoma, the optimal therapy remains to be determined; however, new target therapies seem to be promising, and the search for predictive markers is mandatory.

Microphthalmia family of transcription factors associated renal cell carcinoma

The microphthalmia (MiT) subfamily of transcription factors includes TFE3, TFEB, TFEC, and MITF. In the 2016 World Health Organization classification, MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) including Xp11 tRCC and t(6;11) RCC, was newly defined as an RCC subtype. Xp11 and t(6;11) RCC are characterized by the rearrangement of the MiT transcription factors TFE3 and TFEB, respectively. Recent studies identified the fusion partner-dependent clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features in TFE3-rearranged RCC. Furthermore, RCC with TFEB amplification, melanotic MiT family translocation neoplasms, was identified may as a unique subtype of MiT family associated renal neoplasms, along with MITF associated RCC. In this review, we will collect available literature of these newly-described RCCs, analyze their clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features, and summarize their molecular and genetic evidences. We expect this review would be beneficial for the understanding of these rare subtypes of RCCs, and eventually promote clinical management strategies.

VEGFA amplification/increased gene copy number and VEGFA mRNA expression in renal cell carcinoma with TFEB gene alterations

Amplification of vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) has been recently reported in TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas regardless the level of TFEB amplification. We sought to determine VEGFA amplification by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and VEGFA mRNA expression by in situ hybridization (RNAscope 2.5) in a series of 10 renal cell carcinomas with TFEB gene alterations, either amplification and/or rearrangement (t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma). TFEB gene rearrangement was demonstrated in eight cases, whereas the remaining two cases showed a high level of TFEB (> 10 copies of fluorescent signals) gene amplification without evidence of rearrangement. Among the eight t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas (TFEB-rearranged cases), one case displayed a high level of TFEB gene amplification and two showed increased TFEB gene copy number (3-4 copies of fluorescent signals). Those three cases behaved aggressively. By FISH, VEGFA was amplified in all three cases with TFEB amplification and increased VEGFA gene copy number was observed in the two aggressive cases t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas with an overlapping increased number of TFEB fluorescent signals. Overall, VEGFA mRNA expression was observed in 8 of 10 cases (80%); of these 8 cases, 3 cases showed high-level TFEB amplification, one case showed TFEB rearrangement with increased TFEB gene copy number, whereas four showed TFEB gene rearrangement without increased copy number. In summary, VEGFA amplification/increased gene copy number and VEGFA mRNA expression occur in TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, but also in a subset of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma demonstrating aggressive behavior, and in unamplified conventional t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma suggesting VEGFA as potential therapeutic target in these neoplasms even in the absence of TFEB amplification. We finally propose that all the renal tumors showing morphological characteristics suggesting t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma and all unclassified renal cell carcinomas, either high grade or low grade, should immunohistochemically be evaluated for cathepsin K and/or Melan-A and if one of them is positive, tested for TFEB gene alteration and VEGFA gene amplification.

Histological and molecular characterization of TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System recognizes microphthalmia transcription factor (MiT) family translocation carcinomas as a separate entity among renal cell carcinomas. TFE3 and transcription factor EB (TFEB) are members of the MiT family for which chromosomal rearrangements have been associated with renal cell carcinoma formation. TFEB translocation renal cell carcinoma is a rare tumor harboring a t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation. Recently, renal cell carcinomas with TFEB amplification have been identified. TFEB amplified renal cell carcinomas have to be distinguished from TFEB-translocated renal cancer, because they may demonstrate a more aggressive behavior. Herein, we present a TFEB-translocated and a TFEB-amplified carcinoma cases and describe their distinct histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular characteristics. In addition, we review conventional morphology, immunophenotype, genetic background, and clinical outcome of TFEB-rearranged RCCs in the literature, with a special emphasis on important differential diagnoses and the diagnostic approach.