Papillary pattern in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Clinicopathologic, morphologic, immunohistochemical and molecular genetic analysis of 23 cases

Alpha-methyl CoA racemase (AMACR) reactivity across the spectrum of clear cell renal cell neoplasms

a-Methylacyl coenzyme A racemase (AMACR) is traditionally considered to be a marker of papillary renal cell carcinoma. However, AMACR expression can be seen in other renal tumors. The aim of this study was to investigate AMACR immunoreactivity within the spectrum of clear cell renal cell neoplasms. Fifty-three clear cell renal epithelial tumors were used in assembling the following four cohorts: low grade (LG) clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), high grade (HG) CCRCC, CCRCC with cystic changes, and multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (MCRNLMP). Representative blocks were stained for AMACR, using two different clones (SP52 and OV-TL12/30). There were at least some AMACR immunoreactivity in 77.8 % and 68.9 % of CCRCCs (using SP52 and OV-TL12/30 clone, respectively). Moderate to strong positivity, or positivity in more than one third of the tumor (even weak in intensity) was detected in 46.7 % of CCRCCs using SP52 and in 48.9 % of CCRCC using OV-TL12/30 clone. The highest AMACR reactivity was observed in HG CCRCC (60 % by SP52 and 66.7 % by OV-TL12/30). Strong and diffuse AMACR positivity was detected in 8.9 % of all CCRCCs. AMACR immunoreactivity in MCRNLMP was 37.5 % (SP52 clone) and 25 % (OV-TL12/30 clone). We demonstrated relatively high expression rate of AMACR in CCRCC, while very variable in intensity and distribution. This finding may have diagnostic implications especially in limited samples (i.e., core biopsies), as AMACR positivity does not exclude the diagnosis of CCRCC.

Exploration of Morphological Features of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma With PBRM1, SETD2, BAP1, or KDM5C Mutations

The last decade has seen great advances in genomic profiling and prognosis-associated factors of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the most common entity in kidney cancer. Following VHL, PBRM1, SETD2, BAP1, and KDM5C have been validated as the most common co-occurring gene mutations in clear cell RCC by multicenter studies. However, the morphological features of clear cell RCC with co-occurring gene mutations remain unclear. In this study, we presented 20 clear cell RCCs that underwent next-generation sequencing, of which 1 tumor was reclassified as ELOC-mutated RCC. PBRM1, SETD2, BAP1, and KDM5C were the most common mutations, following VHL. Morphologically, clear cell RCC with PBRM1 or KDM5C mutation usually displayed a low-grade pattern. Cystic changes and hyalinized stroma were often observed. The Ki67 index was <10%. These observations indicated good prognosis. However, mutated SETD2 may increase the malignancy of clear cell RCC with PBRM1 mutation. Two clear cell RCCs with mutated PBRM1 and SETD2 developed local or distant metastases. Clear cell RCC with BAP1 mutations always had high-grade patterns, and rhabdoid differentiation was also observed, indicating that BAP1 mutation was associated with poor outcomes. Papillary architecture was often a feature of BAP1 mutation, which is uncommon in clear cell RCC. PDL1 was positive in only one tumor with BAP1 mutation, and the positivity rate was limited to 5%. B7H3 was negative in all tumors. Morphologic findings in this small cohort may suggest why PBRM1 mutation does not correlate with decreased survival, whereas BAP1 mutation usually predicts poor outcomes.

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.

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.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma with prominent microvascular hyperplasia: Morphologic, immunohistochemical and molecular-genetic analysis of 7 sporadic cases

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is well known for intratumor heterogeneity. An accurate mapping of the tumor is crucial for assessing prognosis, and perhaps this can be linked to potential success/failure of targeted therapies. We assembled a cohort of 7 CCRCCs with prominent vasculature and microvascular hyperplasia (ccRCCPV), resembling those seen in high grade gliomas. A control group of classic CCRCC with no variant morphologies was also included. Both groups were analyzed for clinicopathologic, morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic features. No statistically significant differences in mRNA expression of studied genes between the two groups were found. Using NGS panel Trusight Oncology 500 (TSO500), only one clinically significant gene mutation, VHL c.263G > A, p. (Trp88Ter), was found. TMB (Tumor Mutation Burden) and MSI (MicroSatellite Instability) were low, and no copy number variations (CNVs) were detected in the study cohort. Prominent microvascular hyperplasia in CCRCC is a rare phenomenon. From molecular genetic point of view, these tumors do not appear to be different from classic CCRCC. Prognostically, they also demonstrated similar clinical behaviors.

New developments in existing WHO entities and evolving molecular concepts: The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) update on renal neoplasia

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) reviewed recent advances in renal neoplasia, particularly post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, to provide an update on existing entities, including diagnostic criteria, molecular correlates, and updated nomenclature. Key prognostic features for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain WHO/ISUP grade, AJCC/pTNM stage, coagulative necrosis, and rhabdoid and sarcomatoid differentiation. Accrual of subclonal genetic alterations in clear cell RCC including SETD2, PBRM1, BAP1, loss of chromosome 14q and 9p are associated with variable prognosis, patterns of metastasis, and vulnerability to therapies. Recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines increasingly adopt immunotherapeutic agents in advanced RCC, including RCC with rhabdoid and sarcomatoid changes. Papillary RCC subtyping is no longer recommended, as WHO/ISUP grade and tumor architecture better predict outcome. New papillary RCC variants/patterns include biphasic, solid, Warthin-like, and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity. For tumors with 'borderline' features between oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC, a term "oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, not further classified" is proposed. Clear cell papillary RCC may warrant reclassification as a tumor of low malignant potential. Tubulocystic RCC should only be diagnosed when morphologically pure. MiTF family translocation RCCs exhibit varied morphologic patterns and fusion partners. TFEB-amplified RCC occurs in older patients and is associated with more aggressive behavior. Acquired cystic disease (ACD) RCC-like cysts are likely precursors of ACD-RCC. The diagnosis of renal medullary carcinoma requires a negative SMARCB1 (INI-1) expression and sickle cell trait/disease. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC) can be distinguished from papillary RCC with overlapping morphology by losses of chromosomes 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 22. MTSCC with adverse histologic features shows frequent CDKN2A/2B (9p) deletions. BRAF mutations unify the metanephric family of tumors. The term "fumarate hydratase deficient RCC" ("FH-deficient RCC") is preferred over "hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome-associated RCC". A low threshold for FH, 2SC, and SDHB immunohistochemistry is recommended in difficult to classify RCCs, particularly those with eosinophilic morphology, occurring in younger patients. Current evidence does not support existence of a unique tumor subtype occurring after chemotherapy/radiation in early childhood.

Classification of renal cell tumors – current concepts and use of ancillary tests: recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Pathology

Classification of renal cell carcinomas has become more challenging. The 2016 WHO classification included 14 different subtypes and 4 emerging/provisional entities, and recent literature indicates new entities to be incorporated. Nomenclature is based on cytoplasmic appearance, architecture, combination of morphologies, anatomic location, underlying disease, familial syndromes, and specific genetic alterations. Immunohistochemistry is useful in selected cases while it can be insufficient in entities that require molecular confirmation of a specific gene alteration. The aim of these recommendations is to provide a reasonable and optimized approach for the use of ancillary tests in subtyping renal tumors, particularly in resource-limited settings.

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.