Fumarate hydratase deficient renal cell carcinoma: Chromosomal numerical aberration analysis of 12 cases

[Clinicopathological features and prognosis of fumarate hydratase deficient renal cell carcinoma]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinicopathological features and prognosis of fumarate hydratase deficient renal cell carcinoma (FH-RCC).

METHODS

Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was used to detect the expression of fumarate hydratase (FH) in tumor tissues of 109 different types of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients aged 60 years and younger from the Department of Urology of Peking University First Hospital from January 2013 to December 2019. The clinicopathological data and prognosis of FH-RCC were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were eleven patients with FH-negative expression. Seven were males and four females. The age of onset ranged 16-53 years (mean age: 36.7 years), and four female patients all had a history of uterine leiomyoma. Only one first-degree relative of one patient had renal cancer, and none of the patients had a history or family history of cutaneous leiomyomas. The diameter of the tumor was 2.1-12.0 cm (mean: 8.83 cm). Renal sinus or perirenal fat invasion was seen in nine cases, tumor thrombus in renal vein or inferior vena cava in six cases, lymph node metastasis in seven cases, adrenal gland invasion in four cases and splenic capsule invasion in one case. The cases were initially diagnosed as type Ⅱ papillary RCC (7/49, 14.3%), collecting duct carcinoma (2/9, 22.2%) and unclassified RCC (2/51, 3.9%). Tumor histopathology mostly showed a mixture of different structures, such as papillary, tubular cystic, solid, and so on. The most common histological structures were papillary (9/11, 81.8%) and tubular (8/11, 72.7%). Three cases had sarcomatoid areas. At least focal eosinophilic nucleolus (WHO/grades Ⅲ-Ⅳ) and perinuclear halo could be seen in all cases. Immunohistochemical (IHC) stains of most tumors were negative for CA9, CD10 and CK7. The results of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) showed that there was no translocation or amplification of TFE3 gene in two cases with TFE3 IHC expression. All the patients were followed up for 11-82 months. Mean survival was 24 months. Five cases died of distant metastasis 9-31 months after operation (mean: 19 months), and five of the six patients alive had became metastatic.

CONCLUSION

Morphologically, FH-RCC overlaps with many types cell RCC. A mixture of papillary and tubular cystic arrangement is the most common growth pattern of FH-RCC. At least focally large and obvious eosinophilic nucleoli are an important histological feature of this tumor. The negative expression of FH can help to confirm the diagnosis. Young female RCC patients with uterine leiomyomas should be suspected of FH-RCC. Some FH-RCC cases lack clinical evidence. The suspicion raised by pathologists based on histological characteristics is often the key step to further genetic testing and the final diagnosis of the tumor.

Oncocytic Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma in an 11-year-old girl

Oncocytic Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma (OPRCC) is a rare variant of renal cell carcinoma with overlapping characteristics type 1 and 2 of papillary renal carcinoma. Based on the literature, OPRCC is predominantly present in adult males. OPRCC has a specific genetic affiliation with the Fumarate Hydratase gene requiring all patients diagnosed with OPRCC to undergo genetic testing. There isn't any agreement for the treatment of OPRCC due to the rarity of the disease; however, a radical nephrectomy poses as a possible modality. Therefore, we present the rare case of an 11-year-old female found to have OPRCC.

Comprehensive Molecular Characterization and Response to Therapy in Fumarate Hydratase-Deficient Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE

Fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (FH-RCC) is a rare, aggressive form of RCC associated with hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome. Evidence for systemic therapy efficacy is lacking.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We studied clinical and genomic characteristics of FH-RCC, including response [objective response rate (ORR)] to systemic therapies and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Patients with metastatic FH-RCC, defined by presence of pathogenic germline or somatic FH mutation plus IHC evidence of FH loss, were included.

RESULTS

A total of 28 of 32 included patients (median age 46; range, 20-74; M:F, 20:12) underwent germline testing; 23 (82%) harbored a pathogenic FH germline variant. Five (16%) were negative for germline FH mutations; all had biallelic somatic FH loss. Somatic NGS (31/32 patients) revealed co-occurring NF2 mutation most frequently (n = 5). Compared with clear-cell RCC, FH-RCC had a lower mutation count (median 2 vs. 4; P < 0.001) but higher fraction of genome altered (18.7% vs. 10.3%; P = 0.001). A total of 26 patients were evaluable for response to systemic therapy: mTOR/VEGF combination (n = 18, ORR 44%), VEGF monotherapy (n = 15, ORR 20%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (n = 8, ORR 0%), and mTOR monotherapy (n = 4, ORR 0%). No complete responses were seen. Median overall and progression-free survival were 21.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 14.3-33.8] and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.8-12.3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most FH-RCC tumors are due to germline FH alterations, a significant portion result from biallelic somatic FH loss. Both somatic and germline FH-RCC have similar molecular characteristics, with NF2 mutations, low tumor mutational burden, and high fraction of genome altered. Although immunotherapy alone produced no objective responses, combination mTOR/VEGF therapy showed encouraging results.

Imaging features of fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinomas: a retrospective study

Backgound

Fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (FH-RCC) is a subtype of RCC that is increasingly recognized pathologically. The aim of this study was to evaluate the imaging features of FH-RCC on computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET), and to determine the pre-operative diagnostic potential of imaging.

Methods

This single-site retrospective study included patients with histologically confirmed FH-RCC or with a renal cancer and known germline FH mutation; imaging of the renal mass before treatment with contrast-enhanced CT, contrast-enhanced MRI, or FDG PET/CT between October 2007 and May 2019. Clinical information, pathological data, and imaging features were analyzed and reported descriptively.

Results

Sixteen patients with sixteen tumors were included (median age 46 years, interquartile range 38–53 years; 31 % female). Almost all tumors were unifocal (15/16, 94 %). Most tumors had infiltrative margins (14/16, 88 %); few were circumscribed (2/16, 12 %). A large cystic tumor component (> 75 % of tumor volume) was seen in 8/16 (50 %) of tumors. Involvement of renal sinus fat was seen in 13/16 (81 %) of tumors, involvement of the hilar collecting system in 8/16 (50 %), and renal vein tumor thrombus in 6/16 (38 %). All 12 tumors (100 %) imaged with MRI had heterogenous tumor enhancement and heterogenous T2 signal. Of those patients that had diffusion-weighted imaging, 11/11 (100 %) of tumors had diffusion restriction in the solid portions of the tumor. Of the patients who had PET, 3/3 (100 %) tumors showed high metabolic activity with mean maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) of 16.4 (range 9.6–21.9). Patients presented with retroperitoneal nodal metastases in 69 % of cases and distant metastases in 75 %. Of those four patients without metastatic disease at presentation, three (75 %) developed metastases within 4 years of diagnosis.

Conclusions

In our study, the majority of tumors (≥ 75 %) were unifocal, had an infiltrative margin, invaded the renal sinus fat, and presented with distant metastases. On MRI, most tumors had heterogenous T2 signal and diffusion restriction in their solid components. The small number of cases that had PET imaging showed high metabolic activity.

The Differential Diagnosis of Medullary-Based Renal Masses

CONTEXT.—

Renal malignancies can be divided into cortical- and medullary-based tumors, the latter of which classically infiltrate the renal parenchyma by extending between nonneoplastic structures. Although high-grade cortical tumors can rarely exhibit the same growth pattern, the infiltrative morphology should elicit a differential diagnosis to be considered in each case. However, these diagnoses can be challenging to distinguish, especially on small renal biopsy samples.

OBJECTIVE.—

To provide an overview of the clinical, gross, and microscopic findings; genetic and molecular alterations; and immunohistochemical evaluation of medullary-based renal tumors and other tumor types with overlapping morphologies and growth patterns.

DATA SOURCES.—

Literature review and personal observations were used to compile the information in this review.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Collecting duct carcinoma is a prototypical medullary-based tumor, and although diagnostic criteria exist, it remains a diagnosis of exclusion, especially with ancillary techniques aiding the recognition of established as well as more recently described neoplasms. Other medullary-based malignancies included in the differential diagnosis include renal medullary carcinoma/renal cell carcinoma unclassified with medullary phenotype, fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma, and upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Moreover, other rare entities should be excluded, including metastatic carcinoma, lymphoma, and melanoma. In addition to potential prognostic differences, accurate diagnoses can have important surgical and clinical management implications.

Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers: III: Molecular Pathology of Kidney Cancer

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes are increasingly being discerned via their molecular underpinnings. Frequently this can be correlated to histologic and immunohistochemical surrogates, such that only simple targeted molecular assays, or none at all, are needed for diagnostic confirmation. In clear cell RCC, VHL mutation and 3p loss are well known; however, other genes with emerging important roles include SETD2, BAP1, and PBRM1, among others. Papillary RCC type 2 is now known to include likely several different molecular entities, such as fumarate hydratase (FH) deficient RCC. In MIT family translocation RCC, an increasing number of gene fusions are now described. Some TFE3 fusion partners, such as NONO, GRIPAP1, RBMX, and RBM10 may show a deceptive fluorescence in situ hybridization result due to the proximity of the genes on the same chromosome. FH and succinate dehydrogenase deficient RCC have implications for patient counseling due to heritable syndromes and the aggressiveness of FH-deficient RCC. Immunohistochemistry is increasingly available and helpful for recognizing both. Emerging tumor types with strong evidence for distinct diagnostic entities include eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC and TFEB/VEGFA/6p21 amplified RCC. Other emerging entities that are less clearly understood include TCEB1 mutated RCC, RCC with ALK rearrangement, renal neoplasms with mutations of TSC2 or MTOR, and RCC with fibromuscular stroma. In metastatic RCC, the role of molecular studies is not entirely defined at present, although there may be an increasing role for genomic analysis related to specific therapy pathways, such as for tyrosine kinase or MTOR inhibitors.

Contemporary Renal Tumor Categorization With Biomarker and Translational Updates: A Practical Review

CONTEXT.—

Renal tumor classification has evolved in recent decades, as evidenced by the comparable complexity of the 2016 revision to the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. A recent expansion of the knowledge base surrounding the cells of origin and evolutionary genomic characteristics of renal tumors has led to molecular characterization of novel entities and enriched understanding of established entities. This pace of research and its implementation into clinical practice has again begun to surpass that of our own classification schemata, with significant discoveries having been made since the introduction of the 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification. In particular, biomarkers for renal tumor diagnosis and prognosis are in translation for future clinical application.

OBJECTIVES.—

To provide a brief framework for clinical characterization of renal tumors rooted in morphologic assessment, to briefly review the current and future status of renal tumor biomarkers with an emphasis on practical use of these ancillary tools for accurate diagnosis, and to discuss the impact of emerging technologies and clinical trials relevant to renal cell carcinoma classification and biomarker development.

DATA SOURCES.—

We review recent literature relevant to renal tumor classification (including established and proposed entities), focusing on molecular characterization and biomarker assessment.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Accurate renal tumor diagnosis requires an up-to-date understanding of renal tumor classification, including an awareness of morphologic clues that should stimulate consideration of molecularly defined entities, as well as the ancillary biomarker testing required to confirm diagnoses.

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.

Eosinophilic Kidney Tumors: Old and New

Context.—

Eosinophilic cytoplasm is the most common finding of difficult-to-classify kidney tumors. Morphology, cytogenetics, and immunohistochemical stains are discriminatory. This review compares well-recognized tumors such as granular clear cell carcinoma, papillary variants, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and oncocytoma and introduces newly described entities of hybrid oncocytic tumors, carcinomas defined by translocations, and carcinomas with deficiencies in the tricarboxylic acid cycle. The focus is on immunostaining, clinical correlations, and differential diagnoses. Representative examples of some entities are presented with elaboration on their workup.

Objective.—

To provide a review of the differential diagnoses for renal neoplasms with eosinophilic cytoplasm and elaborate on methods that may assist with correct identification.

Data Sources.—

Review of current literature on kidney tumors with eosinophilic cytoplasm, as well as the authors' personal experience.

Conclusions.—

Eosinophilic cytoplasm is a feature shared by many kidney tumors. Understanding the morphologic differences and the role of ancillary studies is key when encountering such a tumor.