Renal cell carcinomas with a mesenchymal stromal component: what do we know so far?

Eosinophilic Solid and Cystic Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC-RCC) is a novel and uncommon type of renal cell carcinoma, which has been recently recognized and introduced as a distinct entity in the WHO 2022 kidney tumor classification. Previously known as "unclassified RCC", followed by "tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-associated RCC", ESC-RCC is now a distinct category of kidney tumor, with its own name, with specific clinical manifestations, and a unique morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular profile. Due to its recent introduction and the limited available data, the diagnosis of ESC-RCC is still a complex challenge, and it is probably frequently misdiagnosed. The secret of diagnosing this tumor lies in the pathologists' knowledge, and keeping it up to date through research, thereby limiting the use of outdated nomenclature. The aim of our case-based review is to provide a better understanding of this pathology and to enrich the literature with a new case report, which has some particularities compared to the existing cases.

Biallelic ELOC-Inactivated Renal Cell Carcinoma: Molecular Features Supporting Classification as a Distinct Entity

Approximately 70% of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is characterized by the biallelic inactivation of von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) on chromosome 3p. ELOC-mutated (Elongin C-mutated) renal cell carcinoma containing biallelic ELOC inactivations with chromosome 8q deletions is considered a novel subtype of renal cancer possessing a morphologic overlap with ccRCC, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with fibromyomatous stroma exhibiting Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC)/mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTOR) mutations, and clear cell papillary tumor. However, the frequency and consequences of ELOC alterations in wild-type VHL and mutated VHL RCC are unclear. In this study, we characterize 123 renal tumors with clear cell morphology and known VHL mutation status to assess the morphologic and molecular consequences of ELOC inactivation. Using OncoScan and whole-exome sequencing, we identify 18 ELOC-deleted RCCs, 3 of which contain ELOC mutations resulting in the biallelic inactivation of ELOC. Biallelic ELOC and biallelic VHL aberrations were mutually exclusive; however, 2 ELOC-mutated RCCs showed monoallelic VHL alterations. Furthermore, no mutations in TSC1, TSC2, or mTOR were identified in ELOC-mutated RCC with biallelic ELOC inactivation. Using High Ambiguity Driven biomolecular DOCKing, we report a novel ELOC variant containing a duplication event disrupting ELOC-VHL interaction alongside the frequently seen Y79C alteration. Using hyper reaction monitoring mass spectrometry, we show RCCs with biallelic ELOC alterations have significantly reduced ELOC expression but similar carbonic anhydrase 9 and vascular endothelial growth factor A expression compared with classical ccRCC with biallelic VHL inactivation. The absence of biallelic VHL and TSC1, TSC2, or mTOR inactivation in RCC with biallelic ELOC inactivation (ELOC mutation in combination with ELOC deletions on chromosome 8q) supports the notion of a novel, molecularly defined tumor entity.

Are Renal Cell Carcinoma with Fibromyomatous Stroma (RCC-FMS) and Thyroid-like Follicular Carcinoma of the Kidney (TLFCK) Really Independent Variants?

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma with fibromyomatous stroma (RCC-FMS) is a recent provisional entity already recognised in the 2016 WHO Classification of Cancer of the Urinary Tract and Male Genital Organs 4th Edition as renal cell carcinoma with (angio)leiomyomatous stroma, histologically defined as a tumour characterised by clear cells intertwined in a conspicuous vascular stroma. In the casuistry taken into consideration, another proposed variant, thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney (TLFCK), endowed with a morphology mimicking thyroid parenchyma, was examined. The aim of this work was to parse the theoretical system, experimental data and diagnostic impact of these new entities proposed in the field of renal neoplasms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of 120 cases of kidney tumours from the Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area at the University of Pisa was run. Subsequently, all samples were reassessed by two pathologists with expertise in uropathology, whose revaluation provided a histomorphological study combined with subsequent and coherent immunohistochemical analyses of CK7, CD10, CAIX, CK34betaE12, CD117, vimentin, TTF-1 and thyroglobulin. These analyses were performed using the Ventana Benchmark Automated Staining System (Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ, USA) and Ventana reagents.

RESULTS

On the one hand, the data, thus brought to light, did not show an immunohistochemical profile consistent with that proposed for RCC-FMS. However, it should be emphasised that the morphological background also unearthed a poor specificity for RCC-FMS. This was specifically due to a stromal component which was, in any case, evident, although characterised by a wide range of presentation, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This latter is, indeed, the reference background for this theorised variant. On the other hand, a thyroid-like pattern was highlighted in 11 cases, more specifically in 10 ccRCCs and in one oncocytoma, presenting itself as a type of neoplastic appearance rather than as the peculiar morphological pattern of a standalone cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In the light of these results, RCC-FMS and TLFCK appear to be more appropriately variants of already categorised neoplastic entities rather than new independent neoplasias.

System analysis of VEGFA in renal cell carcinoma: The expression, prognosis, gene regulation network and regulation targets

BACKGROUND

VEGFA is one of the most important regulators of angiogenesis and plays a crucial role in cancer angiogenesis and progression. Recent studies have highlighted a relationship between VEGFA expression and renal cell carcinoma occurrence. However, the expression level, gene regulation network, prognostic value, and target prediction of VEGFA in renal cell carcinoma remain unclear. Therefore, system analysis of the expression, gene regulation network, prognostic value, and target prediction of VEGFA in patients with renal cell carcinoma is of great theoretical significance as there is a clinical demand for the discovery of new renal cell carcinoma treatment targets and strategies to further improve renal cell carcinoma treatment efficacy.

METHODS

This study used multiple free online databases, including cBioPortal, TRRUST, GeneMANIA, GEPIA, Metascape, UALCAN, LinkedOmics, Metascape, and TIMER for the abovementioned analysis.

RESULTS

VEGFA was upregulated in patients with kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (KIRC) and kidney chromophobe (KICH), and downregulated in patients with kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma (KIRP). Moreover, genetic alterations of VEGFA were found in patients with renal cell carcinoma as follows: 4% (KIRC), 8% (KICH), and 4% (KIRP). The promoter methylation of VEGFA was lower and higher in patients with clinical stages of KIRC and stage 1 KIRP, respectively. VEGFA expression significantly correlated with KIRC and KIRP pathological stages. Furthermore, patients with KICH and KIRP having low VEGFA expression levels had a longer survival than those having high VEGFA expression levels. VEGFA and its neighboring genes functioned in the regulation of protein methylation and glycosylation, as well as muscle fiber growth and differentiation in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Gene Ontology enrichment analysis revealed that the functions of VEGFA and its neighboring genes in patients with renal cell carcinoma are mainly related to cell adhesion molecule binding, catalytic activity, acting on RNA, ATPase activity, actin filament binding, protease binding, transcription coactivator activity, cysteine-type peptidase activity, and calmodulin binding. Transcription factor targets of VEGFA and its neighboring genes in patients with renal cell carcinoma were found: HIF1A, TFAP2A, and ESR1 in KIRC; STAT3, NFKB1, and HIPK2 in KICH; and FOXO3, TFAP2A, and ETS1 in KIRP. We further explored the VEGFA-associated kinase (ATM in KICH as well as CDK1 and AURKB in KIRP) and VEGFA-associated microRNA (miRNA) targets (MIR-21 in KICH as well as MIR-213, MIR-383, and MIR-492 in KIRP). Furthermore, the following genes had the strongest correlation with VEGFA expression in patients with renal cell carcinoma: NOTCH4, GPR4, and TRIB2 in KIRC; CKMT2, RRAGD, and PPARGC1A in KICH; and FLT1, C6orf223, and ESM1 in KIRP. VEGFA expression in patients with renal cell carcinoma was positively associated with immune cell infiltration, including CD8+T cells, CD4+T cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed VEGFA expression and potential gene regulatory network in patients with renal cell carcinoma, thereby laying a foundation for further research on the role of VEGFA in renal cell carcinoma occurrence. Moreover, the study provides new renal cell carcinoma therapeutic targets and prognostic biomarkers as a reference for fundamental and clinical research.

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.

Novel, emerging and provisional renal entities: The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) update on renal neoplasia

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) undertook a critical review of the recent advances in renal neoplasia, particularly focusing on the newly accumulated evidence post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. In the era of evolving histo-molecular classification of renal neoplasia, morphology is still key. However, entities (or groups of entities) are increasingly characterized by specific molecular features, often associated either with recognizable, specific morphologies or constellations of morphologies and corresponding immunohistochemical profiles. The correct diagnosis has clinical implications leading to better prognosis, potential clinical management with targeted therapies, may identify hereditary or syndromic associations, which may necessitate appropriate genetic testing. We hope that this undertaking will further facilitate the identification of these entities in practice. We also hope that this update will bring more clarity regarding the evolving classification of renal neoplasia and will further reduce the category of "unclassifiable renal carcinomas/tumors". We propose three categories of novel entities: (1) "Novel entity", validated by multiple independent studies; (2) "Emerging entity", good compelling data available from at least two or more independent studies, but additional validation is needed; and (3) "Provisional entity", limited data available from one or two studies, with more work required to validate them. For some entities initially described using different names, we propose new terminologies, to facilitate their recognition and to avoid further diagnostic dilemmas. Following these criteria, we propose as novel entities: eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC RCC), renal cell carcinoma with fibromyomatous stroma (RCC FMS) (formerly RCC with leiomyomatous or smooth muscle stroma), and anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement-associated renal cell carcinoma (ALK-RCC). Emerging entities include: eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT) and thyroid-like follicular renal cell carcinoma (TLFRCC). Finally, as provisional entities, we propose low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT), atrophic kidney-like lesion (AKLL), and biphasic hyalinizing psammomatous renal cell carcinoma (BHP RCC).

Clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma: an update after 15 years

Fifteen years since the first recognition of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma, this distinct renal tumour type is now well accepted as a distinct entity in major classification schemes. It occurs both with and without end-stage renal disease and may be multifocal or bilateral in both scenarios. Recognisable morphological features include clear cells lining branching glands and variable papillary formations with nuclear alignment. Most tumours are small (pT1a) and nucleolar grade 1-2. Immunohistochemistry consistently shows positivity for carbonic anhydrase IX and cytokeratin 7, and often high molecular weight cytokeratin or GATA3, the latter suggesting distal nephron phenotype. Labeling for AMACR and CD10 is consistently negative or minimal. Despite a resemblance to clear cell renal cell carcinoma, molecular alterations of VHL and chromosome 3p are typically lacking, with debatable rare exceptions. Potential mimics include clear cell renal cell carcinoma (with branching architecture or nuclear alignment), papillary renal cell carcinoma with clear cytoplasm, or rarely MITF family translocation renal cell carcinoma. Clinical behaviour is highly favourable with rare, debatable reports of aggressive behaviour. Combined with striking similarity to several extrarenal benign neoplasms, it would be reasonable to reclassify this entity as a benign or low malignant potential neoplasm. Using the nomenclature of the extrarenal counterparts, clear cell papillary (cyst)adenoma is proposed.

Prevalence of pathogenic variants in DNA damage response and repair genes in patients undergoing cancer risk assessment and reporting a personal history of early-onset renal cancer

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in multiple genes are known to increase the risk of early-onset renal cancer (eoRC). However, many eoRC patients lack PVs in RC-specific genes; thus, their genetic risk remains undefined. Here, we determine if PVs in DNA damage response and repair (DDRR) genes are enriched in eoRC patients undergoing cancer risk assessment. Retrospective review of de-identified results from 844 eoRC patients, undergoing testing with a multi-gene panel, for a variety of indications, by Ambry Genetics. PVs in cancer-risk genes were identified in 12.8% of patients—with 3.7% in RC-specific, and 8.55% in DDRR genes. DDRR gene PVs were most commonly identified in CHEK2, BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM. Among the 2.1% of patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV, < 50% reported a personal history of hereditary breast or ovarian-associated cancer. No association between age of RC diagnosis and prevalence of PVs in RC-specific or DDRR genes was observed. Additionally, 57.9% patients reported at least one additional cancer; breast cancer being the most common (40.1% of females, 2.5% of males). Multi-gene testing including DDRR genes may provide a more comprehensive risk assessment in eoRC patients. Further validation is needed to characterize the association with eoRC.

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.

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.