Morphological, immunohistochemical, and chromosomal analysis of multicystic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, an architecturally unusual challenging variant

Cystic Features in Renal Epithelial Neoplasms and Their Increasing Clinical and Pathologic Significance

Most cystic renal tumors after resection (Boniak IIF to IV cysts) have an indolent course despite the significantly higher proportion of malignant [ie, renal cell carcinoma (RCC)] diagnosis. Most cystic renal tumors have clear cell histology that include cystic clear cell RCC and multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (MCNLMP). There is growing evidence to suggest that MCNLMP, cystic clear cell RCC, and noncystic clear cell RCC form a cystic-to-solid biological spectrum with MCNLMP representing the most indolent form and with cystic clear cell RCC behaving better than noncystic (solid) clear cell RCC. Extensively (>75%) cystic clear cell RCC also has an excellent outcome similar to MCNLMP stressing the need to reevaluate the histologic criteria that separate these 2 cystic clear cell tumors. Other tumors with clear cells that can be extensively cystic such as the recently reclassified noncancerous clear cell papillary renal tumor and the newly described MED15::TFE3 RCC also have indolent course and may mimic MCNLMP. Cystic features occur also in renal tumors with nonclear cell histology including tumors capable of metastasis such as acquired cystic disease-associated, tubulocystic, fumarate hydratase-deficient, and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCCs. Cystic imaging presentation of some renal tumors such as papillary RCC can be attributed in part to pseudocystic necrosis and hemorrhage. It is important to know that tubulocystic RCC may have a lower Bosniak class presentation that overlaps with benign renal cysts (Bosniak I to IIF) that are managed conservatively. This review highlights the cystic renal tumors with clear cell and nonclear cell morphologies including some novel RCC subtypes that may have cystic features. The presence of cystic features and their extent may aid in the classification and prognostication of renal neoplasms underscoring its increasing importance in the pathologic diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia.

Clinicopathological, Immunohistochemical, and Molecular Characteristics of Pigmented Microcystic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma with Favorable Prognosis

Background. Pigmented microcystic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a subtype of chromophobe RCC. Its distinct histopathologic features are microcystic and microtubular pattern, pigmentation, and microcalcifications. Pigmented microcystic chromophobe RCC has ultrastructure, immunophenotypic structure, and molecular results similar to chromophobe RCC. Methods. We report five tumors of pigmented microcystic chromophobe RCC. Morphological observation and immunohistochemical examination were performed, and clinical and molecular features were analyzed. Results. Microscopically, all five tumors showed brown pigmentation, microcystic, and tubular cystic structures, one tumor presented microscopic calcifications. All tumors were positive for EMA, AE1/AE3, PAX8, KRT7, KIT (CD117), claudin 7, KRT8, and E-cadherin, and three tumors expressed P504S. All tumors were negative for vimentin, CA9, KRT20, TFE3, TFEB, Melan-A, HMB45, FH, SDHB, and GATA3. Ki-67 index varied from less than 1% to 2%. In three tumors, next-generation sequencing of the 688 gene was performed, the results found gene variants with potential clinical significance such as JMJD1C, MYCL, TP53, PI3KCA, KRAS, APC, GLI1, LRRK2, and gene variants with unclear clinical significance such as NTRK1 and RAD50; All patients remained alive over a follow-up period of 8-46 months without tumor recurrence and sarcomatoid transformation. Conclusions. Pigmented microcystic chromophobe RCC has a relatively benign biological behavior, and distant metastases and sarcomatoid transformation are rare. This overview of five additional tumors of pigmented microcystic chromophobe RCC offers further insight into this special subtype of chromophobe RCC.

A contemporary guide to chromosomal copy number profiling in the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma

The routine clinical implementation of molecular methods other than fluorescence in situ hybridization in the evaluation of renal neoplasia is currently limited, as the current standard of care primarily involves a combination of morphologic and immunophenotypic analysis of such tumors. Amongst various molecular techniques, global copy number profiling using single nucleotide polymorphism-based microarrays, colloquially referred to as SNP-arrays, is being increasingly utilized to profile renal tumors, as several subtypes have characteristic recurrent patterns of copy number alterations. Recurrent copy number alterations in common tumor types include loss of chromosome 3p in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), gain of chromosomes 7 and 17 in papillary RCC and multiple losses in chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21 in chromophobe RCC. Such assays are being increasingly utilized in the clinical setting. Herein, we discuss some common clinical applications of such testing that includes high yield diagnostic and prognostic applications. Diagnostic utility includes evaluation of tumor types that are primarily defined by underlying copy number alterations, establishing the underlying subtype in high grade dedifferentiated (unclassified) renal tumors, as well as assessment of loss of heterozygosity, which is an important component in the workup for germline alterations in tumor suppressor genes. Universal adoption of these techniques across clinical laboratories will likely be significantly affected by variables such as cost, reimbursement, and turnaround time.

Algorithm-Based Approach to the Histological Routine Diagnosis of Renal Oncocytic Tumors in Core Biopsy Specimens

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A growing number of tumor entities with badly defined limits are enlarging in the last years the family of oncocytic tumors in the kidney.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) and renal oncocytoma (RO) are classically well-known tumors, but the borderland between them, and their precise connection, remains a matter of debate. Aside from that, other emerging and provisional entities, like eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC RCC), eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT), low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT), and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity (PRRP), have been recently described. This spectrum of tumors remains a diagnostic challenge in renal pathology, especially if the specimen obtained is scarce. This review focuses on practical diagnostic problems when managing core biopsies and proposes a diagnostic algorithm maximizing the information provided by both morphology and immunohistochemistry. So, a combination of morphologic features on hematoxylin-eosin and six antibodies (CK7, CD117, CK20, CD10, GATA-3, and cathepsin K) is advised to be used in a stepwise fashion.

Low grade oncocytic tumors of the kidney: a clinically relevant approach for the workup and accurate diagnosis

Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma were accepted as unique renal tumors in the late 1990s. Since their formal description, criteria for diagnosis have evolved and additional distinct tumor subtypes originally considered as one these two entities are now recognized. The last two decades have witnessed unprecedented interest in the spectrum of low grade oncocytic renal neoplasms in three specific areas: (1) histologic characterization of tumors with overlapping morphologic features between oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma; (2) description of potentially unique entities within this spectrum, such as eosinophilic vacuolated tumor and low-grade oncocytic tumor; and (3) better appreciation of the association between a subset of low grade oncocytic tumors and hereditary renal neoplasia. While this important work has been academically rewarding, the proposal of several histologic entities with overlapping morphologic and immunophenotypic features (which may require esoteric adjunctive immunohistochemical and/or molecular techniques for confirmation) has created frustration in the diagnostic pathology and urology community as information evolves regarding classification within this spectrum of renal neoplasia. Pathologists, including genitourinary subspecialists, are often uncertain as to the "best practice" diagnostic approach to such tumors. In this review, we present a practical clinically relevant algorithmic approach to classifying tumors within the low grade oncocytic family of renal neoplasia, including a proposal for compressing terminology for evolving categories where appropriate without sacrificing prognostic relevance.

WHO 2022 landscape of papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

The 5th edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary and Male Genital Systems contains relevant revisions and introduces a group of molecularly defined renal tumour subtypes. Herein we present the World Health Organization (WHO) 2022 perspectives on papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with emphasis on their evolving classification, differential diagnosis, and emerging entities. The WHO 2022 classification eliminated the type 1/2 papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) subcategorization, given the recognition of frequent mixed tumour phenotypes and the existence of entities with a different molecular background within the type 2 pRCC category. Additionally, emerging entities such as biphasic squamoid alveolar RCC, biphasic hyalinising psammomatous RCC, papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity, and Warthin-like pRCC are included as part of the pRCC spectrum, while additional morphological and molecular data are being gathered. In addition to oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC), a category of 'other oncocytic tumours' with oncocytoma/chRCC-like features has been introduced, including emerging entities, most with TSC/mTOR pathway alterations (eosinophilic vacuolated tumour and so-called 'low-grade' oncocytic tumour), deserving additional research. Eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC was accepted as a new and independent tumour entity. Finally, a highly reproducible and clinically relevant universal grading system for chRCC is still missing and is another niche of ongoing investigation. This review discusses these developments and highlights emerging morphological and molecular data relevant for the classification of renal cell carcinoma.

The Histologic Diversity of Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma With Emphasis on Challenges Encountered in Daily Practice

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) is the third most common renal cell carcinoma in adults. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview highlighting the broad morphologic spectrum of ChRCC, and offer a practical approach for handling cases in daily practice. For the purpose of this review, we classify ChRCC subtypes as (1) classic, (2) eosinophilic, (3) sarcomatoid, and (4) other rare patterns. The concept of eosinophilic ChRCC has significantly evolved, yet it still is one of the major diagnostic challenges pathologists face in routine practice due to its morphologic overlap with renal oncocytoma. Rare patterns of ChRCC have been described over the last few decades, showing a wide histologic spectrum including those with adenomatoid microcystic pigmented, multicystic, neuroendocrine, small cell, and papillary features. ChRCC represents a heterogenous group of neoplasms, demonstrating varied but unique morphologic and genetic profiles. Although the field of ChRCC knowledge is still evolving, rare patterns can present diagnostic challenges if they are not known to pathologists and/or clinicians. Proper and generous tumor sampling along with careful histologic examination allow for recognition of these rare morphologies. The role of routine molecular testing appears to be limited. From a clinical management standpoint, the rare patterns of ChRCC seem to have no definite clinical implications at present and likely can be managed similarly to usual ChRCC. Finally, we will discuss distinctive novel/emerging renal neoplasms previously considered under the spectrum of ChRCC, low-grade oncocytic renal tumor and eosinophilic vacuolated tumor, with regard to their current significance and implications for future classification strategies.

Immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of renal epithelial neoplasms

Despite the increasing number of newly identified renal neoplasms, the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can usually be reached with careful histologic examination and a limited immunohistochemical (IHC) panel. Clear cell, papillary, chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma account for more than 90% of renal neoplasia in adults, and sophisticated ancillary tools are usually unnecessary. Renal tumors with entity-defining genetic alterations may ultimately require molecular confirmation via cytogenetics or sequencing technologies, such as RCC with TFE3, TFEB, or ALK gene rearrangements, or TFEB amplified RCC. In fumarate hydratase-deficient and succinate dehydrogenase-deficient RCC, highly specific IHC markers can strongly suggest the diagnosis. In the metastatic setting, PAX8 and carbonic anhydrase 9 are among the most helpful markers for confirming RCC and clear cell type, respectively; however, caution should be exercised in the absence of a current or historical renal mass. In diagnostically challenging cases, such as renal eosinophilic tumors with low-grade nuclear features, or infiltrative high-grade tumors, careful examination coupled with a judicious panel of IHC markers usually resolves the diagnosis. This review offers concise algorithms for diagnosis of kidney neoplasia with the latest recognized, provisional, and emerging entities to daily pathology practice.

Comprehensive Review of Numerical Chromosomal Aberrations in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Including Its Variant Morphologies

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) accounts for 5% to 7% of all renal cell carcinomas. It was thought for many years that ChRCC exhibits a hypodiploid genome. Recent studies using advanced molecular genetics techniques have shown more complex and heterogenous pattern with frequent chromosomal gains. Historically, multiple losses of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21 have been considered a genetic hallmark of ChRCC, both for classic and eosinophilic ChRCC variants. In the last 2 decades, multiple chromosomal gains in ChRCCs have also been documented, depicting a considerably broader genetic spectrum than previously thought. Studies of rare morphologic variants including ChRCC with pigmented microcystic adenomatoid/multicystic growth, ChRCC with neuroendocrine differentiation, ChRCC with papillary architecture, and renal oncocytoma-like variants also showed variable chromosomal numerical aberrations, including multiple losses (common), gains (less common), or chromosomal changes overlapping with renal oncocytoma. Although not the focus of the review, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data in ChRCC show TP53, PTEN, and CDKN2A to be the most mutated genes. Given the complexity of molecular genetic alterations in ChRCC, this review analyzed the existing published data, aiming to present a comprehensive up-to-date survey of the chromosomal abnormalities in classic ChRCC and its variants. The potential role of chromosomal numerical aberrations in the differential diagnostic evaluation may be limited, potentially owing to its high variability.

Clinicopathological and Molecular Characteristics of Macroscopically Yellowish-Colored Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Compared to Non-Yellowish-Colored Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma

Each histological variant of renal cell tumors has a unique color. The yellowish color of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is explained by the presence of intracytoplasmic lipid and glycogen accumulation. Color changes in CCRCC are correlated with clinicopathological and metabolic changes, as well as biological behavior. We analyzed and compared the clinical, histopathological, and immunohistochemical features and gene expression profiles, in lipid metabolism of yellowish-colored ChRCC (ChRCC-Y), non-yellowish-colored ChRCC (ChRCC-N), and CCRCC. Of 14 ChRCCs, we retrieved 6 ChRCC-Ys. Patients with ChRCC-Y are younger than those with ChRCC-N, and the tumor is not predominant in males. ChRCC-Ys are smaller than ChRRC-Ns. Three ChRCC-Ys exhibited individual discrete tubule formation. No ChRCC-Ns exhibited individual discrete tubule formation. Two of 6 ChRCC-Ys showed relatively diffuse adipophilin positivity. No ChRCC-Ns demonstrated diffuse positivity for adipophilin. The expression of SCD, FDFT1, and E2F1 showed a tendency to be lower in ChRCC-Y than in ChRCC-N. The expression of PDGFB showed a tendency to be higher in ChRCC-Y than in ChRCC-N. This study demonstrated ChRCC-Y did not indicate an increase in lipid and cholesterol metabolism and that ChRCC-Y did not have the common molecular alteration of CCRCC. The absence of such metabolic acceleration in ChRCC-Y might support the biological indolent behavior. Furthermore, we revealed that macroscopic color changes might be correlated with various clinicopathological features and immunohistochemical and molecular changes from different perspectives. We believe further characterization of RCC, including tumor heterogeneity, is needed to improve the management of patients with RCC.

Molecular Genetics of Renal Cell Tumors: A Practical Diagnostic Approach

Renal epithelial cell tumors are composed of a heterogeneous group of tumors with variable morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. A "histo-molecular" approach is now an integral part of defining renal tumors, aiming to be clinically and therapeutically pertinent. Most renal epithelial tumors including the new and emerging entities have distinct molecular and genetic features which can be detected using various methods. Most renal epithelial tumors can be diagnosed easily based on pure histologic findings with or without immunohistochemical examination. Furthermore, molecular-genetic testing can be utilized to assist in arriving at an accurate diagnosis. In this review, we presented the most current knowledge concerning molecular-genetic aspects of renal epithelial neoplasms, which potentially can be used in daily diagnostic practice.

Expanding the morphologic spectrum of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: A study of 8 cases with papillary architecture

Although typically arranged in solid alveolar fashion, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may also show several other architectural growth patterns. We include in this series 8 chromophobe RCC cases with prominent papillary growth, a pattern very rarely reported or only mentioned as a feature of chromophobe RCC, which is lacking wider recognition The differential diagnosis of such cases significantly varies from the typical chromophobe RCC with its usual morphology, particularly its distinction from papillary RCC and other relevant and clinically important entities. Of 972 chromophobe RCCs in our files, we identified 8 chromophobe RCCs with papillary growth. We performed immunohistochemistry and array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) to investigate for possible chromosomal aberrations. Patients were 3 males and 5 females with age ranging from 30 to 84 years (mean 57.5, median 60 years). Tumor size was variable and ranged from 2 to 14 cm (mean 7.5, median 6.6 cm). Follow-up was available for 7 of 8 patients, ranging from 1 to 61 months (mean 20.1, median 12 months). Six patients were alive with no signs of aggressive behavior, and one died of the disease. Histologically, all cases were composed of dual cell population consisting of variable proportions of leaf-like cells with pale cytoplasm and eosinophilic cells. The extent of papillary component ranged from 15 to 100% of the tumor volume (mean 51%, median 50%). Sarcomatoid differentiation was identified only in the case with fatal outcome. Immunohistochemically, all tumors were positive for CK7, CD117 and Hale's Colloidal Iron. PAX8 was positive in 5 of 8 cases, TFE3 was focally positive 3 of 8 tumors, and Cathepsin K was focally positive in 2 of 8 tumors. All cases were negative for vimentin, AMACR and HMB45. Fumarate hydratase staining was retained in all tested cases. The proliferative activity was low (up to 1% in 7, up to 5% in one case). Three cases were successfully analyzed by aCGH and all showed a variable copy number variation profile with multiple chromosomal gains and losses. CONCLUSIONS: Chromophobe RCC demonstrating papillary architecture is an exceptionally rare carcinoma. The diagnosis can be challenging, although the cytologic features are consistent with the classic chromophobe RCC. Given the prognostic and therapeutic implications of accurately diagnosis other RCCs with papillary architecture (i.e., Xp11.2 translocation RCC, FH-deficient RCC), it is crucial to differentiate these cases from chromophobe RCC with papillary architecture. Based on this limited series, the presence of papillary architecture does not appear to have negative prognostic impact. However, its wider recognition may allow in depth studies on additional examples of this rare morphologic variant.

"High-grade oncocytic renal tumor": morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 14 cases

The spectrum of the renal oncocytic tumors has been expanded in recent years to include several novel and emerging entities. We describe a cohort of novel, hitherto unrecognized and morphologically distinct high-grade oncocytic tumors (HOT), currently diagnosed as "unclassified" in the WHO classification. We identified 14 HOT by searching multiple institutional archives. Morphologic, immunohistochemical (IHC), molecular genetic, and molecular karyotyping studies were performed to investigate these tumors. The patients included 3 men and 11 women, with age range from 25 to 73 years (median 50, mean 49 years). Tumor size ranged from 1.5 to 7.0 cm in the greatest dimension (median 3, mean 3.4 cm). The tumors were all pT1 stage. Microscopically, they showed nested to solid growth, and focal tubulocystic architecture. The neoplastic cells were uniform with voluminous oncocytic cytoplasm. Prominent intracytoplasmic vacuoles were frequently seen, but no irregular (raisinoid) nuclei or perinuclear halos were present. All tumors demonstrated prominent nucleoli (WHO/ISUP grade 3 equivalent). Nine of 14 cases were positive for CD117 and cytokeratin (CK) 7 was either negative or only focally positive in of 6/14 cases. All tumors were positive for AE1-AE3, CK18, PAX 8, antimitochondrial antigen, and SDHB. Cathepsin K was positive in 13/14 cases and CD10 was positive in 12/13 cases. All cases were negative for TFE3, HMB45, Melan-A. No TFEB and TFE3 genes rearrangement was found in analyzable cases. By array CGH, complete chromosomal losses or gains were not found in any of the cases, and 3/9 cases showed absence of any abnormalities. Chromosomal losses were detected on chromosome 19 (4/9), 3 with losses of the short arm (p) and 1 with losses of both arms (p and q). Loss of chromosome 1 was found in 3/9 cases; gain of 5q was found in 1/9 cases. On molecular karyotyping, 3/3 evaluated cases showed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on 16p11.2-11.1 and 2/3 cases showed LOH at 7q31.31. Copy number (CN) losses were found at 7q11.21 (3/3), Xp11.21 (3/3), Xp11.22-11.21 (3/3), and Xq24-25 (2/3). CN gains were found at 13q34 (2/3). Ten patients with available follow up information were alive and without disease progression, after a mean follow-up of 28 months (1 to 112 months). HOT is a tumor with unique morphology and its IHC profile appears mostly consistent. HOT should be considered as an emerging renal entity because it does not meet the diagnostic criteria for other recognized eosinophilic renal tumors, such as oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), TFE3 and TFEB RCC, SDH-deficient RCC, and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC.

Renal cell carcinoma: the search for a reliable biomarker

One particular challenge in the treatment of kidney tumors is the range of histologies and tumor phenotypes a renal mass can represent. A kidney tumor can range from benign (e.g., oncocytoma) to a clinically indolent malignancy (e.g., papillary type I, chromophobe) to aggressive disease [e.g., papillary type II or high-grade clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)]. Even among various subtypes, kidney cancers are genetically diverse with variable prognoses and treatment response rates. Therefore, the key to proper treatment is the differentiation of these subtypes. Currently, a wide array of diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers exist that may help guide the individualized care of kidney cancer patients. This review will discuss the various serum, urine, imaging, and immunohistological biomarkers available in practice.