Immunophenotypic and pathologic heterogeneity of unclassified renal cell carcinoma: a study of 300 cases

Diagnostic Biomarkers in Renal Cell Tumors According to the Latest WHO Classification: A Focus on Selected New Entities

The fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification for urogenital tumors, released in 2022, introduces some novelties in the chapter on renal epithelial tumors compared to the previous 2016 classification. Significant changes include the recognition of new disease entities and adjustments in the nomenclature for certain pathologies. Notably, each tumor entity now includes minimum essential and desirable criteria for reliable diagnosis. This classification highlights the importance of biological and molecular characterization alongside traditional cytological and architectural features. In this view, immunophenotyping through immunohistochemistry (IHC) plays a crucial role in bridging morphology and genetics. This article aims to present and discuss the role of key immunohistochemical markers that support the diagnosis of new entities recognized in the WHO classification, focusing on critical topics associated with single markers, in the context of specific tumors, such as the clear cell capillary renal cell tumor (CCPRCT), eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC-RCC), and so-called "other oncocytic tumors", namely the eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT) and low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT). Their distinctive characteristics and immunophenotypic profiles, along with insights regarding diagnostic challenges and the differential diagnosis of these tumors, are provided. This state-of-the-art review offers valuable insights in biomarkers associated with novel renal tumors, as well as a tool to implement diagnostic strategies in routine practice.

The 2022 revision of World Health Organization classification of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs: advances and challenges

The fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of urinary and male genital organ tumors has been recently published in 2022. The application of molecular profiling has made a substantial impact on classification of urologic tumors. The new WHO classification introduces a group of molecularly well-defined renal tumor subtypes. The significant changes include addition of a category of "other oncocytic tumors" with oncocytoma/chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC)-like features, elimination of the subcategorization of type1/2 papillary RCC and inclusion of eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC as an independent tumor entity. The WHO/ISUP grading now has been recommended for all RCCs. Major nomenclature changes include replacement of histologic 'variants' by 'subtypes', 'clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma' to 'clear cell renal cell tumor','TCEB1-mutated RCC' to 'ELOC-mutated RCC', 'hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma' to 'fumarate hydratase-deficient RCC', 'RCC-Unclassified' to 'RCC-NOS', 'primitive neuroectodermal tumor' to 'embryonic neuroectodermal tumor', 'testicular carcinoid' to 'testicular neuroendocrine tumor', and 'basal cell carcinoma of the prostate' to 'adenoid-cystic (basal-cell) carcinoma of the prostate'. Metastatic, hematolymphoid, mesenchymal, melanocytic, soft tissue and neuroendocrine tumors are collectively discussed in separate chapters. It has been suggested that the morphological classification of urothelial cancer be replaced with a new molecular taxonomic classification system.

Updates in Grading of Renal Cell Carcinomas Beyond Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends grading of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and papillary RCC using the WHO/International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade, which is primarily based on nuclear features. As the spectrum of RCC continues to evolve, with more recently described subtypes in the past decade, literature evidence on grading these subtypes is limited or not available for some tumor types. Herein, we outline a pragmatic approach to the topic of grading RCC, dividing the contemporarily described RCC subtypes into 7 categories based on the potential clinical applicability of grading as a useful prognostic parameter: (1) RCC subtypes that are reasonably validated and recommended for WHO/ISUP grading; (2) RCC subtypes where WHO/ISUP is not applicable; (3) RCC subtypes where WHO/ISUP grading is potentially clinically useful; (4) inherently aggressive RCC subtypes where histologic classification itself confers an aggressive biologic potential; (5) renal epithelial tumors where WHO/ISUP grading provides potentially misleading prognostic implication; (6) renal epithelial neoplasms where low WHO/ISUP grade features are a prerequisite for accurate histologic classification; and (7) renal epithelial neoplasms with no or limited data on grading or incomplete understanding of the biologic potential. Our aim in outlining this approach is 2-fold: (a) identify the gaps in understanding and application of grading in RCC subtypes so that researchers in the field may perform additional studies on the basis of which the important pathologic function of assignment of grade may be recommended to be performed as a meaningful exercise across a wider spectrum of RCC; and (b) to provide guidance in the interim to surgical pathologists in terms of providing clinically useful grading information in RCC based on currently available clinicopathologic information.

Unclassified Oncocytic Renal Neoplasm with Rib and Liver Metastases: Metastatic Oncocytoma?

Renal tumors with oncocytic or chromophobe-like morphology can be a common source of diagnostic difficulty. In some series, they constitute the largest group of unclassified renal cell carcinomas, a term used for neoplasms that do not fit the current classification of renal tumors. We describe the histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings of an eosinophilic renal neoplasm which presented with rib and liver metastases, and provide a review of the literature. The possibility of a renal oncocytoma with metastases was initially considered but excluded on the basis of several morphological and immunohistochemical features. Additionally, the tumor did not correspond with other traditional or newly emerging categories of renal neoplasms. It was therefore regarded as an unclassified oncocytic renal neoplasm which demonstrated evidence of malignant potential due to the presence of multiple metastases.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome with rare unclassified renal cell carcinoma: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHDS) is a rare genetic disease. Renal cell carcinoma is the most serious complication of BHDS. The histological types of BHDS-related renal cell carcinoma are mostly mixed chromophobe/eosinophil and chromophobe cell types. BHDS with unclassified renal cell carcinoma is extremely rare.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 37-year-old man was admitted to the hospital because of lumbago and hematuria.

DIAGNOSIS

Combined with abdominal enhanced CT and pulmonary CT, BHDS complicated with renal cell carcinoma was diagnosed, and right partial nephrectomy was performed. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was unclassified renal cell carcinoma. Gene detection revealed the FLCN frameshift mutation.

OUTCOMES

No signs of recurrence were observed after regular follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The pathogenesis of BHDS has not been fully elucidated, and the pathological type of BHDS with unclassified renal cell carcinoma is extremely rare. Through case presentation and review of related literature, this paper summarizes the diagnosis and treatment of BHDS complicated with unclassified renal cell carcinoma.

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.

Contemporary Characterization and Recategorization of Adult Unclassified Renal Cell Carcinoma

Our recent study of early-onset unclassified eosinophilic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) demonstrated that two third of cases could be reclassified by performing a limited number of immunohistochemistry stains. Following the same approach, we aimed to investigate what proportion of adult unclassified RCC could be reclassified. We identified 79 cases. The mean age at presentation was 58 years (range, 29 to 84 y). Tumors were grouped based on their predominant morphologic features as oncocytic (n=23); papillary (n=22); clear cell (n=22); mucinous tubular and spindle cell (MTSC; n=5); rhabdoid (n=4); or lacking a dominant pattern (n=3). By reviewing the morphologic features and performing ancillary studies, we were able to reclassify 10 cases (13%). Four cases were positive for CK20 and showed morphologic features consistent with eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC. Four cases were reclassified as MTSC based on VSTM2A expression by RNA in situ hybridization. One case was negative for SDHB and reclassified as succinate dehydrogenase-deficient RCC. None of the cases showed loss of expression of fumarate hydratase. One case was diffusely positive for CK7 and negative for CD117 and reclassified as a low-grade oncocytic tumor. Four cases were positive for both cathepsin-K and TFE3 by immunohistochemistry, although fluorescence in situ hybridization failed to identify rearrangement in either TFE3 or TFEB genes. Of the tumors that remained unclassified, those with oncocytic features were less likely to be a high grade (odds ratio [OR]=0.22, P=0.013) or advanced stage (OR=0.19, P=0.039) and were more common in women (OR=3.4, P=0.05) compared with those without oncocytic features. Tumors with rhabdoid morphology were associated with advanced stage (relative risk=3.6, P=0.009), while tumors with clear cell or papillary features had a wide range of grades and stages at presentation. In summary, the most frequent reclassified entity is eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC. Investigation of expression of succinate dehydrogenase or fumarate hydratase in individuals older than 35 years with unclassifiable tumors is low yield in the absence of specific morphologic features. A subset of MTSC without well-developed morphologic features can be reclassified by using RNA-ISH for VSTM2A. Recognition of more-recently described RCC subtypes allows for their distinction from the unclassified subtype and improves the prognostic information provided.

Molecular pathology of urothelial carcinoma

The current personalized oncology era has witnessed significant efforts to integrate clinical, pathological, and molecular classifications. The growing need for molecular biomarkers to feed personalized oncology, together with the unprecedented wealth of knowledge on the molecular basis of bladder cancer, has led to a novel approach to this disease, incorporating molecularly generated data in clinical practice for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Translational research allows a better understanding of the early events in the development of urothelial carcinoma in the urinary bladder. Thus, mutations in the KMT2D and KDM6A chromatin-modifying genes confer competitive advantages that drive cells to colonize larger regions of the urothelium. Additional mutations in TP53, PIK3CA, FGFR3, or RB1 genes then trigger the process of malignant transformation in the urothelium. In the current review, we provide an overview of what could be the expected transition from the morphology-based classification to a combined, molecularly enriched reporting of clinically meaningful parameters aiming to promote personalized oncology of urothelial carcinoma.