High fidelity of driver chromosomal alterations among primary and metastatic renal cell carcinomas: implications for tumor clonal evolution and treatment

Distal Tubular Hyperplasia: A Proposal for a Unique Form of Renal Tubular Proliferation Distinct From Papillary Adenoma

We identified an unusual pattern of renal tubular proliferation associated with chronic renal disease, found in 23 patients, diffusely (n=12), or focally (n=11). Incidence was 5% of end-stage renal disease kidneys from one institution (8/177) and 7/23 patients with acquired cystic kidney disease-associated renal cell carcinoma from another. Most (19 patients) had 1 or more neoplasms including papillary (n=9), acquired cystic kidney disease (n=8), clear cell (n=4), or clear cell papillary (n=3) renal cell carcinoma. All (20 men, 3 women) had end-stage renal disease. The predominant pattern (n=18) was the indentation of chronic inflammation into renal tubules forming small polypoid structures; however, 5 had predominantly hyperplastic epithelium with less conspicuous inflammation. In 14 patients both patterns were appreciable, whereas the remainder had only the inflammatory pattern. Immunohistochemistry was positive for cytokeratin 7, high-molecular-weight cytokeratin, PAX8, and GATA3. Staining for alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase was negative or weak, dramatically less intense than papillary neoplasms or proximal tubules. CD3 and CD20 showed a mixture of B and T lymphocytes in the inflammatory areas. Fluorescence in situ hybridization showed no trisomy 7 or 17 or loss of Y (n=9). We describe a previously uncharacterized form of renal tubular proliferation that differs from papillary adenoma (with weak or negative alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, lack of trisomy 7 or 17, and sometimes diffuse distribution). On the basis of consistent staining for high-molecular-weight cytokeratin and GATA3, we propose the name distal tubular hyperplasia for this process. Future studies will be helpful to assess preneoplastic potential and etiology.

Molecular characteristics and markers of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Pitfalls due to intratumoral heterogeneity and identification of genetic alterations associated with metastasis

OBJECTIVES

To identify clear cell renal cell carcinoma-related gene mutations potentially associated with aggressive disease, sarcomatoid differentiation or poor prognosis.

METHODS

We carried out genomic analysis of 217 tumor foci from 25 patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma (14 patients), clear cell renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid differentiation (six patients) and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (five patients). Each tumor nodule on the tissue block that corresponded to the same focus on the slide was separated from the normal parenchyma and other histologically distinct areas of tumor. The isolated tumor foci were used for subsequent analyses and sequencing. Deoxyribonucleic acid from the formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues was extracted. Multiplex bar-coded polymerase chain reaction amplification was carried out using next-generation sequencing libraries.

RESULTS

Overall, 67 protein alterations, including amino acid alterations, frame shifts and splice site mutations in seven genes were identified in the cohort of renal cell carcinoma tumors included in this study. Fewer patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid differentiation had clear cell renal cell carcinoma-related mutations in comparison with patients with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Additionally, the average number of unique clear cell renal cell carcinoma-related protein alterations per patient was significantly lower in clear cell renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid differentiation than in conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Mutations in PBRM1 were identified in a higher proportion of patients with high-grade tumors (World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology grade 4) and in the primary tumors of six of 10 (60%) patients with metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are pitfalls due to intratumoral heterogeneity and sampling bias, mutations in PBRM1 may be associated with metastasis and aggressive disease in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

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.

Classic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Incur a Larger Number of Chromosomal Losses Than Seen in the Eosinophilic Subtype

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is a renal tumor subtype with a good prognosis, characterized by multiple chromosomal copy number variations (CNV). The World Health Organization (WHO) chRCC classification guidelines define a classic and an eosinophilic variant. Large cells with reticular cytoplasm and prominent cell membranes (pale cells) are characteristic for classic chRCC. Classic and eosinophilic variants were defined in 42 Swiss chRCCs, 119 Japanese chRCCs and in whole-slide digital images of 66 chRCCs from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) kidney chromophobe (KICH) dataset. 32 of 42 (76.2%) Swiss chRCCs, 90 of 119 (75.6%) Japanese chRCCs and 53 of 66 (80.3%) TCGA-KICH were classic chRCCs. There was no survival difference between eosinophilic and classic chRCC in all three cohorts. To identify a genotype/phenotype correlation, we performed a genome-wide CNV analysis using Affymetrix OncoScan^® CNV Assay (Affymetrix/Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) in 33 Swiss chRCCs. TCGA-KICH subtypes were compared with TCGA CNV data. In the combined Swiss and TCGA-KICH cohorts, losses of chromosome 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, and 17 were significantly more frequent in classic chRCC (p < 0.05, each), suggesting that classic chRCC are characterized by higher chromosomal instability. This molecular difference justifies the definition of two chRCC variants. Absence of pale cells could be used as main histological criterion to define the eosinophilic variant of chRCC.

VSTM2A Overexpression Is a Sensitive and Specific Biomarker for Mucinous Tubular and Spindle Cell Carcinoma (MTSCC) of the Kidney

Our recent study revealed recurrent chromosomal losses and somatic mutations of genes in the Hippo pathway in mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC). Here, we performed an integrative analysis of 907 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) samples (combined from The Cancer Genome Atlas and in-house studies) and the Knepper data set of microdissected rat nephrons. We identified VSTM2A and IRX5 as novel cancer-specific and lineage-specific biomarkers in MTSCC. We then assessed their expression by RNA in situ hybridization (ISH) in 113 tumors, including 33 MTSCC, 40 type 1 papillary RCC, 8 type 2 papillary RCC, 2 unclassified RCC, 15 clear cell RCC, and 15 chromophobe RCC. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated as the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). All MTSCC tumors demonstrated moderate to high expression of VSTM2A (mean ISH score=255). VSTM2A gene expression assessed by RNA sequencing strongly correlated with VSTM2A ISH score (r(2)=0.81, P=0.00016). The majority of non-MTSCC tumors demonstrated negative or low expression of VSTM2A. IRX5, nominated as a lineage-specific biomarker, showed moderate to high expression in MTSCC tumors (mean ISH score=140). IRX5 gene expression assessed by RNA sequencing strongly correlated with IRX5 ISH score (r(2)=0.69, P=0.00291). VSTM2A (AUC: 99.2%) demonstrated better diagnostic efficacy than IRX5 (AUC: 87.5%), and may thus serve as a potential diagnostic marker to distinguish tumors with overlapping histology. Furthermore, our results suggest MTSCC displays an overlapping phenotypic expression pattern with the loop of Henle region of normal nephrons.

Best treatment options for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients: a Delphi consensus study

The introduction of targeted therapy for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has improved the outcome of these patients in the last decade. However, many patients still relapse. The aim of this consensus study was to establish common recommendations about the best treatment options in patients with RCC. A two-round Delphi methodology was used. A total of 25 statements were submitted to a panel of 30 specialists. If consensus was not obtained in the first round a second and last round was performed. Agreement was achieved for 19 of the proposed 25 statements (76%). When making a decision about the treatment option, considering the efficiency and response rate to previous treatment, drug's toxicity and the patients' clinical features are very relevant.