KIT and RCC Are Useful in Distinguishing Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma From the Granular Variant of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

SATB2 as a Marker of the Proximal Nephron: Expression in Nephrogenic Adenoma and Correlation With Other Renal Tubular Markers

Nephrogenic adenoma (NA) is an infrequent reactive urothelial lesion. The expression of immunohistochemical renal tubular markers has been reported in NA, although a proximal or distal nephron phenotype has not been established. Special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2 (SATB2) is a marker of a colorectal origin of adenocarcinomas, occasionally reported in renal samples. We have analyzed SATB2 expression in NA, with correlation with other tubular markers, as well as in the normal kidney. Fifty cases of NA were immunostained with PAX8, SATB2, proximal nephron markers [CD10, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) marker, alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), and CD15], and distal markers (Ksp cadherin, cytokeratin 7, E-cadherin (E-cad), and cytokeratin 19). Ten normal kidney sections were stained with a double method combining SATB2 plus CD10, RCC marker, AMACR, Ksp cadherin, cytokeratin 7, or E-cad. All NA were immunoreactive for PAX8 and 57% for SATB2. Every case was positive for proximal and distal nephron markers: 100% for cytokeratins 7 and 19, 84.1% E-cad +, 81.6% AMACR +, 68.9% Ksp cadherin +, 63% CD15 +, 53.3% CD10 +, and 28.6 % RCC +. In the normal kidney, SATB2 was detected in the straight part of the proximal tubules and the thin descending loops of Henle. NA shows a multiphenotypic pattern with coexpression of both proximal and distal nephron markers, and constant expression of PAX8, cytokeratins 7 and 19. SATB2 is often positive in NA, which should be kept in mind to avoid a possible misdiagnosis of intestinal adenocarcinoma. SATB2 is a marker of the normal proximal nephron.

Impact of Preanalytical Factors on the Measurement of Tumor Tissue Biomarkers Using Immunohistochemistry

Analysis of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is commonplace in clinical and research laboratories. However, reports suggest that IHC results can be compromised by biospecimen preanalytical factors. The National Cancer Institute's Biospecimen Preanalytical Variables Program conducted a systematic study to examine the potential effects of delay to fixation (DTF) and time in fixative (TIF) on IHC using 24 cancer biomarkers. Differences in IHC staining, relative to controls with a DTF of 1 hr, were observed in FFPE kidney tumor specimens after a DTF of ≥2 hr. Reductions in H-score and/or staining intensity were observed for c-MET, p53, PAX2, PAX8, pAKT, and survivin, whereas increases were observed for RCC1, EGFR, and CD10. Prolonged TIF of 72 hr resulted in significantly reduced H-scores of CD44 and c-Met in kidney tumor specimens, compared with controls with 12-hr TIF. An elevated probability of altered staining intensity due to DTF was observed for nine antigens, whereas for prolonged TIF an elevated probability was observed for one antigen. Results reported here and elsewhere across tumor types and antigens support limiting DTF to ≤1 hr when possible and fixing tissues in formalin for 12-24 hr to avoid confounding effects of these preanalytical factors on IHC.

Expression Analysis of Wnt-5a in Renal Epithelial Neoplasms: Distinguishing Renal Oncocytoma from a Wide Spectrum of Renal Cell Carcinomas

Objective

To study the expression of a novel marker, Wnt-5a, in renal epithelial neoplasms and determine its clinicopathological significance.

Methods

Immunohistochemical analysis of Wnt-5a was carried out in normal human kidney samples as well as in 123 primary renal epithelial neoplasms including 37 clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), 24 papillary RCCs (15 type 1 and 9 type 2), 25 chromophobe RCCs, 11 Xp11 translocation carcinomas, 6 mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinomas, and 20 oncocytomas.

Results

Wnt-5a was expressed in 18.9% (7/37) of clear cell RCCs, 12.5% (3/24) of papillary RCCs, 16% (4/25) of chromophobe RCCs, 18.2% (2/11) of Xp11 translocation carcinomas, 0% (0/6) of mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinomas, and 100% (20/20) of oncocytomas. There was a significant difference in Wnt-5a immunohistochemistry between renal oncocytoma and the other subtypes of RCC (P <0.01).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that Wnt-5a is a potentially useful immunohistochemical marker for the complex differential diagnosis between oncocytoma and other subtypes of RCC and also suggest that Wnt-5a may be a tumor suppressor gene in RCC.

Proximal CD13 Versus Distal GATA-3 Expression in Renal Neoplasia According to WHO 2016 Classification

Little is known about the aminopeptidase CD13 in renal neoplasia according to the new 2016 World Health Organization renal tumor classification. We selected 175 cases, including 79 clear cell, 31 papillary, 24 chromophobe, 8 clear cell papillary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), 21 oncoytomas, and 12 microphthalmia transcription factor family translocation RCCs: 4 t(6;11)/transcription factor EB (TFEB), 7 t(Xp11) with 2 cystic variants and 1 t(X;17). GATA binding protein 3 (GATA-3) was inserted as control. Expression of proximal antigen CD13 was observed in 63/79 (80%) clear cell, 25/31 (81%) papillary, 3/8 (37%) clear cell papillary, 1/4 (25%) t(6;11)/TFEB, 2/7 (28%) cystic t(Xp11), and in 1/1 t(X;17) RCCs. All chromophobe RCC (0/24) and all oncocytomas (0/21) resulted negative. CD10 was seen in 76/79 (96%) clear cell, 15/31 (48%) papillary, 10/24 (42%) chromophobe, 1/8 (12%) clear cell papillary RCCs, 4/21 (19%) oncocytomas, 1/4 (25%) t(6;11)/TFEB, 2/7 (29%) cystic t(Xp11), and in 1/1 t(X;17) RCCs. GATA-3 was positive in 3/7 (42%) clear cell papillary RCCs and negative in all remaining RCCs, except a single chromophobe RCC and a single oncocytoma. We concluded that: (1) CD13 and GATA-3 immunostains may serve as a diagnostic aid in differentiating subtypes of RCC; (2) CD13 is always absent in chromophobe RCC and oncocytomas, whereas CD10 can be immunoexpressed in both; (3) CD13 should be included in a panel of antibodies to distinguish "proximal renal tumors" from "distal renal tumors" and between clear cell RCC versus microphthalmia transcription factor family translocations RCCs; and (4) when present, GATA-3 is specific for clear cell papillary RCC.

Topics in histopathology of sweat gland and sebaceous neoplasms

This article reviews several topics regarding sweat gland and sebaceous neoplasms. First, the clinicopathological characteristics of poroid neoplasms are summarized. It was recently reported that one-fourth of poroid neoplasms are composite tumors and one-fourth are apocrine type lesions. Recent progress in the immunohistochemical diagnosis of sweat gland neoplasms is also reviewed. CD117 can help to distinguish sweat gland or sebaceous tumors from other non-Merkel cell epithelial tumors of the skin. For immunohistochemical differential diagnosis between sweat gland carcinoma (SGC) other than primary cutanesous apocrine carcinoma and skin metastasis of breast carcinoma (SMBC), a panel of antibodies may be useful, including p63 (SGC⁺ , SMBC^- ), CK5/6 (SGC⁺ , SMBC^- ), podoplanin (SGC⁺ , SMBC^- ) and mammaglobin (SGC^- , SMBC⁺ ). Comparison of antibodies used for immunohistochemical diagnosis of sebaceous carcinoma (SC) suggests that adipophilin has the highest sensitivity and specificity. Some authors have found that immunostaining for survivin, androgen receptor and ZEB2/SIP1 has prognostic value for ocular SC, but not extraocular SC. In situ SC is rare, especially extraocular SC, but there have been several recent reports that actinic keratosis and Bowen's disease are the source of invasive SC. Finally, based on recent reports, classification of sebaceous neoplasms into three categories is proposed, which are sebaceoma (a benign neoplasm with well-defined architecture and no atypia), borderline sebaceous neoplasm (low-grade SC; an intermediate tumor with well-defined architecture and nuclear atypia) and SC (a malignant tumor with invasive growth and evident nuclear atypia).

Diagnostic utility of vimentin, CD117, cytokeratin-7 and caveolin-1 in differentiation between clear cell renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and oncocytoma

Overlapping morphological characteristics pose some difficulties in making a proper diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC), and oncocytoma, on the basis of hematoxylin-eosin-stained tissue sections. Our objective was to find out a fast, reliable panel of immunohistochemical markers for differentiation between them. The study was carried out on 55 selected renal tumor specimens: 36 cases of CCRCC, seven cases of ChRCC, and 12 cases of oncocytoma. The specimens were stained immunohistochemically for vimentin, CD117, cytokeratin (CK)7, and caveolin (Cav)-1. Sensitivity and specificity for each marker were calculated. Vimentin expression was exclusively observed in CCRCC (100%) and negative in ChRCC and oncocytoma. CD117 was absent in CCRCC, but it was strongly expressed in ChRCC (85.5%) and oncocytoma (91.7%), with high sensitivity and specificity. Most CCRCCs and oncocytomas were negative for CK7 (91.7% and 83.3%, respectively), in contrast to ChRCCs, which showed positivity in nearly 86% of the cases. Good sensitivity and specificity were calculated for CK7 in differentiating studied oncocytic tumors. Cav-1 was positive in ~78% of the CCRCCs and in all ChRCCs, whereas the vast majority of oncocytomas were negative. So the immunoprofile of CCRCC was vimentin⁺/CD117^-/CK7^-/Cav-1^±, ChRCC was vimentin^-/CD117⁺/CK7⁺/Cav-1⁺, and oncocytoma was vimentin^-/CD117⁺/CK7^±/Cav-1^-. So, by using combination of four markers (vimentin, CD117, CK7, and Cav-1), we achieved excellent sensitivity and specificity for differential diagnosis of CCRCC, ChRCC and oncocytoma.

Possible prognostic and therapeutic significance of c-Kit expression, mast cell count and microvessel density in renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most frequent renal tumor and its incidence is increasing worldwide. Tumor angiogenesis is known to play a crucial role in the etiopathogenesis of RCC and over the last few years an even deeper knowledge of its contribution in metastatic RCC development has led to the development of numerous molecular targeting agents (such as sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, axitinib, tivozanib, and dovitinib). The above agents are principally directed against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) members and also against c-Kit receptor (c-KitR). The role of c-kitR inhibition on clear cell RCC (ccRCC), the main RCC subtype, is less well established. Whether c-kitR activation through its ligand, stem cell factor (SCF) contributes significantly to the effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) treatment remains to be established. It is important to underscore that the c-KitR is expressed on mast cells (MCs) and cancer cells. After an examination of the c-KitR/SCF pathway, we review here the principal studies that have evaluated c-Kit expression in RCC. Moreover, we summarize some investigations that have observed the distribution of MCs in primary renal cancer and in adjacent normal tissue with appropriate histological immunohistochemical techniques. We also focus on few studies that have evaluated the correlation between RCC proliferation, MC count and microvessel density (MVD), as hallmarks of tumor angiogenesis. Thus, the aim of this review of the literature is to clarify if c-KitR expression, MC count and MVD could have prognostic significance and the possible predictive therapeutic implications in RCC.

t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma (RCC): expanded immunohistochemical profile emphasizing novel RCC markers and report of 10 new genetically confirmed cases

Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) harboring the t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation were first described in 2001 and recently recognized by the 2013 International Society of Urological Pathology Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia. Although these RCCs are known to label for melanocytic markers HMB45 and Melan A and the cysteine protease cathepsin K by immunohistochemistry (IHC), a comprehensive IHC profile has not been reported. We report 10 new t(6;11) RCCs, all confirmed by break-apart TFEB fluorescence in situ hybridization. A tissue microarray containing 6 of these cases and 7 other previously reported t(6;11) RCCs was constructed and immunolabeled for 21 different antigens. Additional whole sections of t(6;11) RCC were labeled with selected IHC markers. t(6;11) RCC labeled diffusely and consistently for cathepsin K and Melan A (13 of 13 cases) and almost always at least focally for HMB45 (12 of 13 cases). They labeled frequently for PAX8 (14 of 23 cases), CD117 (10 of 14 cases), and vimentin (9 of 13 cases). A majority of cases labeled at least focally for cytokeratin Cam5.2 (8 of 13 cases) and CD10 and RCC marker antigen (10 of 14 cases each). In contrast to a prior study's findings, only a minority of cases labeled for Ksp-cadherin (3 of 19 cases). The median H score (product of intensity score and percentage labeling) for phosphorylated S6, a marker of mTOR pathway activation, was 101, which is high relative to most other RCC subtypes. In summary, IHC labeling for PAX8, Cam5.2, CD10, and RCC marker antigen supports classification of the t(6;11) RCC as carcinomas despite frequent negativity for broad-spectrum cytokeratins and EMA. Labeling for PAX8 distinguishes the t(6;11) RCC from epithelioid angiomyolipoma, which otherwise shares a similar immunoprofile. CD117 labeling is more frequent in the t(6;11) RCC compared with the related Xp11 translocation RCC. Increased pS6 expression suggests a possible molecular target for the uncommon t(6;11) RCCs that metastasize.

Comparison of segmental enhancement inversion on biphasic MDCT between small renal oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to assess the usefulness of segmental enhancement inversion on biphasic MDCT in differentiating small (<4 cm) renal oncocytomas from chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (CRCCs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-two patients (40 men and 42 women) with a mean (±SD) age of 54±12 years (range, 21-75 years) with 27 renal oncocytomas and 55 CRCCs diagnosed by surgery who underwent contrast-enhanced biphasic CT between January 2000 and December 2011 were included. CT scans were interpreted by two radiologists who were blinded to the pathologic findings. The tumors were evaluated for size and segmental enhancement inversion. After independent evaluation, a consensus was reached by measuring the attenuation. Pathologic analysis determined the presence of fibrous septa, cystic change, hemorrhage, and necrosis. The Fisher exact test was used to evaluate the relationship between segmental enhancement inversion, tumor type, and specific pathologic changes. Interobserver concordance was evaluated with kappa statistics.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in size between renal oncocytomas and CRCCs (p=0.458). Segmental enhancement inversion was present in 23, 20, and 21 (25.6%) of the 82 tumors according to reader 1, reader 2, and the consensus, respectively. The agreement was almost perfect (κ=0.843; p<0.001). Segmental enhancement inversion was more common in renal oncocytomas (63% [17/27]) than in CRCCs (7.3% [4/55]; p<0.001). There were no significant relationships between the four pathologic changes and tumor type or segmental enhancement inversion (p=0.351 and p=0.126, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study findings suggest that segmental enhancement inversion on biphasic MDCT may be useful in differentiating small renal oncocytomas from CRCCs.

Renal tumors: diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers

The International Society of Urological Pathology convened a consensus conference on renal cancer, preceded by an online survey, to address issues relating to the diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia. In this report, the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and assessment of prognosis of renal tumors is addressed. In particular we focused upon the use of immunohistochemical markers and the approach to specific differential diagnostic scenarios. We enquired whether cytogenetic and molecular tools were applied in practice and asked for views on the perceived prognostic role of biomarkers. Both the survey and conference voting results demonstrated a high degree of consensus in participants' responses regarding prognostic/predictive markers and molecular techniques, whereas it was apparent that biomarkers for these purposes remained outside the diagnostic realm pending clinical validation. Although no individual antibody or panel of antibodies reached consensus for classifying renal tumors, or for confirming renal metastatic disease, it was noted from the online survey that 87% of respondents used immunohistochemistry to subtype renal tumors sometimes or occasionally, and a majority (87%) used immunohistochemical markers (Pax 2 or Pax 8, renal cell carcinoma [RCC] marker, panel of pan-CK, CK7, vimentin, and CD10) in confirming the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. There was consensus that immunohistochemistry should be used for histologic subtyping and applied before reaching a diagnosis of unclassified RCC. At the conference, there was consensus that TFE3 and TFEB analysis ought to be requested when RCC was diagnosed in a young patient or when histologic appearances were suggestive of the translocation subtype; whereas Pax 2 and/or Pax 8 were considered to be the most useful markers in the diagnosis of a renal primary.

Differentiation of oncocytoma from chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC): can novel molecular biomarkers help solve an old problem?

Standard treatment of renal neoplasms remains surgical resection, and nephrectomy for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) still has the best chance of cure with excellent long-term results. For smaller renal masses, especially stage T1a tumours less than 4 cm, nephron-sparing surgery is often employed. However, small incidentally detected renal masses pose an important diagnostic dilemma as a proportion of them may be benign and could be managed conservatively. Renal oncocytoma is one such lesion that may pose little risk to a patient if managed with routine surveillance rather than surgery. Additionally, lower-risk RCC, such as small chromophobe RCC, may be managed in a similar way, although with more caution than the renal oncocytomas (RO). The ability to differentiate ROs from chromophobe RCCs, and from other RCCs with a greater chance of metastasis, would guide the physician and patient towards the most appropriate management, whether nephron-sparing surgical resection or conservative surveillance. Consistent accurate diagnosis of ROs is likely to remain elusive until modern molecular biomarkers are identified and applied routinely. This review focuses on the differentiation of renal oncocytomas and chromophobe RCCs. It summarises the history, epidemiology and clinical presentation of the renal neoplasms, explains the diagnostic dilemma, and describes the value, or not, of current molecular markers that are in development to assist in diagnosis of the renal neoplasms.

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a morphologic and immunohistochemical study of 45 cases

The aim of this study was to evaluate the morphological spectrum of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (CRCC) and diagnostic utility of a panel of three immunohistochemical stains. All cases of CRCC reported between 2002 and 2012 in the Section of Histopathology, Aga Khan University Hospital, were retrieved. A total of 45 cases were identified. Slides were reviewed and immunohistochemical stains (CK7, CD117, and vimentin) were performed. Ages ranged from 18 to 90 years (mean, 48.5 years). Male-to-female ratio was 0.8:1. The tumor was located in the left kidney in 24 patients and the right kidney in 20 patients. The tumor size ranged from 3.5 to 22 cm (mean 10 cm). Histologically, 4 were classic, 22 were eosinophilic, 16 were mixed, and 3 were sarcomatoid type. Morphologic patterns included broad alveolar, solid, nested, tubular, tubulocystic, trabecular, papillary, and microglandular. Binucleation and perinuclear halos were seen in all cases. Nuclear grooves and pseudoinclusions were seen in 17 and 6 cases, respectively. Multinucleated cells were seen in 19 cases. Mitoses ranged from 1 to 11/10 HPFs (mean 3/10 HPFs). Hyalinized stroma was seen in 38 cases and calcification in 26 cases. Necrosis was seen in 18 cases. Palisading of smaller cells around the broad alveolar pattern was noted in 5 cases. The Furhman's nuclear grade was I (11), II (26), III (5), and IV (3). Hale's colloidal iron was positive in all cases. Immunohistochemical stain CK7 and CD117 were positive in 100% and 95.5% of cases respectively. Vimentin was negative in all cases, except in the sarcomatoid areas of 3 cases. In conclusion, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma has certain unique morphological features and immunohistochemical profile which help to distinguish it from conventional renal cell carcinoma and oncocytoma. We identified nuclear pseudoinclusions, microglandular pattern and palisading of smaller cells, which have not been reported earlier.

PAX2 and PAX8 Expression in Primary and Metastatic Renal Tumors: A Comprehensive Comparison

Context.—The diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains problematic, especially in the context of metastasis or small-needle biopsies. PAX2 and PAX8 transcription factors are known to be expressed by several histologic types of renal neoplasms.

Objective.—To evaluate the diagnostic utility of PAX2 and PAX8 relative to one another, which has not been studied.

Design.—Consecutive tissue sections from the archival samples of 243 primary and 99 metastatic renal neoplasms were submitted to PAX2 and PAX8 immunostain.

Results.—Within the primary neoplasms, PAX2 versus PAX8 expression was noted in 90 of 95 (95%) versus 92 of 95 (97%) for clear cell RCC, 29 of 38 (76%) versus 38 of 38 (100%) for papillary RCC, 14 of 25 (56%) versus 22 of 25 (88%) for chromophobe RCC, 3 of 7 (43%) versus 5 of 7 (71%) for collecting duct RCC, 6 of 8 (75%) versus 8 of 8 (100%) for acquired cystic kidney disease–related RCC, and 7 of 13 (54%) versus 11 of 13 (85%) for oncocytoma. Regardless of histologic subtype, PAX8 staining was noted in more cells and with more intense staining than PAX2. Within the metastatic RCCs, PAX8 expression was more frequently positive than PAX2 expression (88 of 99 cases; 89%; versus 75 of 99 cases; 76%).

Conclusions.—Both PAX2 and PAX8 are diagnostically useful markers for both primary and metastatic renal neoplasms of a large variety of histologic types. However, PAX8 appears to be more sensitive than PAX2 in both primary and metastatic settings. PAX8 can be included in any immunohistochemical panel for the diagnosis of primary renal neoplasms. Adding PAX2 should be optional, but this would gain limited further diagnostic yield. In a metastatic setting, both PAX8 and PAX2 can be included in a panel because a small subset of metastatic RCCs are stained only with PAX2.

Nephrogenic adenoma: an immunohistochemical analysis using biotin-free methods

Nephrogenic adenoma (NA) has been considered as a metaplastic process of the urothelium. It has been suggested that this lesion is of renal tubular cell origin or differentiation. Immunohistochemical studies of NA emphasize its staining with α-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase (AMACR), and prostatic adenocarcinoma may be a possible differential diagnosis. This reactivity was recently discussed as an artifact due to endogenous biotin. Kidney-specific cadherin (Ksp-cad) is a marker of distal nephron. CD10 and KIT are also expressed in the kidney. We studied the immunohistochemical expression of AMACR, p63, Ksp-cad, CD10, and KIT in 9 cases of NA (forming a total of 12 lesions). Practically all of the lesions stained for AMACR with 2 different antibodies and 2 high-sensitivity (multimer or polymer based) biotin-free methods (83% and 100%). The staining was similar for both methods in 9 of these 12 lesions. All of the NAs were negative for p63 and KIT, except 1 case, with focal reactivity for KIT. CD10 was expressed very focally in 4 of the 12 lesions (33%). We observed weak staining for Ksp-cad in 6 lesions (50%) and 3 (25%) showed a moderate positivity in 15% to 50% of the cells. In conclusion, positivity of NA for AMACR is not an artifact, as we confirmed using 2 different methods. Besides, p63, a basal cell marker, is usually negative. Immunoreactivity for Ksp-cad seems to support the differentiation of NA to distal nephron cells, at least in some of the cases. Other markers expressed by the nephron, such as CD10 and KIT, are usually negative in NA.

Role of immunohistochemistry in diagnosing renal neoplasms: when is it really useful?

CONTEXT

With the refinement of molecular and histologic classifications of renal neoplasms and the availability of more-effective molecular targeted therapy for specific renal neoplasms, immunohistochemical techniques will play an increasingly important role in the diagnosis of renal neoplasm. During the past few decades, many markers have been evaluated for their role in the diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of treatment for renal neoplasms. The number of useful markers in our routine practice continues to increase. The challenge will be to choose among them and to decide in which situations immunohistochemistry will be truly useful.

OBJECTIVES

To review the diagnostic utility of molecular markers for renal neoplasms and common diagnostic scenarios that call for immunohistochemistry in routine practice.

DATA SOURCES

This review is based on published literature and personal experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the most important and useful markers for the diagnosis of renal neoplasm include cytokeratins, vimentin, PAX2, PAX8, RCC marker, CD10, E-cadherin, kidney-specific cadherin, parvalbumin, claudin-7, claudin-8, α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase, CD117, TFE3, thrombomodulin, uroplakin III, p63, CD57, and carbonic anhydrase IX. Each marker has its diagnostic role in a specific diagnostic setting. The common diagnostic situations that call for immunohistochemical staining are differential diagnoses of renal versus nonrenal neoplasms, histologic subtyping of renal cell carcinoma, diagnosis of rare primary renal neoplasms, diagnosis of renal neoplasms in small core-biopsy specimens, diagnosis of possible metastatic renal carcinomas, and less frequently, molecular prognostication.

Histological reclassification, histochemical characterization and c-kit immunoexpression in renal cell carcinoma

Objectives:

Renal cell carcinoma is the most lethal of all urologic malignancies. Several parameters such as histological subtype, nuclear grade and TNM staging help in determining the prognosis and treatment options. A newer therapeutic modality has been suggested based on expression of c-kit antigen by the tumor cells. This study was designed to evaluate various histological parameters and correlate them with c-kit expression.

Materials and Methods:

The study was done on 40 consecutive cases of renal epithelial tumors. Histological sections were reviewed and reclassified according to WHO (2004) classification and nuclear grade assessed. Hale's colloidal iron stain was done to identify the chromophobe variant. Immunostaining with c-kit was done and its expression was studied. The results were correlated and statistical significance was assessed.

Results:

The age range was 31-81 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. Seventy per cent of the cases were clear cell RCC (ClRCC), 17.5% were chromophobe type, 7.5% were papillary RCCs and 5% cases were oncocytomas. Fuhrman nuclear grading revealed 60.5% cases to be of low grade and 39.5% high grade. Hale's colloidal iron staining was positive in chromophobe RCC and oncocytomas, while it was negative in ClRCC. Immunostaining with c-kit was positive only in oncocytomas.

Conclusions:

Clear cell RCC was the most common histological subtype of RCC. Clear cell RCC known to have a poor prognosis, showed a statistically significant higher nuclear grade than chromophobe and papillary RCCs which have a better prognosis. Hale's colloidal iron staining was extremely useful in distinguishing chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma from the granular cell variant of clear RCC. Our study revealed c-kit negativity in all RCC. As Imatinib could be ineffective in such tumors, its clinical activity has to be carefully assessed in such tumors through further studies.

Cluster analysis of immunohistochemical profiles delineates CK7, vimentin, S100A1 and C-kit (CD117) as an optimal panel in the differential diagnosis of renal oncocytoma from its mimics

AIMS

To develop an immunohistochemical strategy for distinguishing renal oncocytoma (RO) from the eosinophilic variant of chromophobe (ChRCC), and papillary (PRCC) and clear cell (CRCC) renal cell carcinoma containing eosinophilic cytoplasm in core biopsy specimens.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cluster analysis was performed on immunohistochemical data from 21 RO, 16 ChRCC, 16 CRCC and 20 PRCC patients. A panel of CK7, C-kit, S100A1 and vimentin clustered into four groups. Cluster A (94% ChRCC) expressed C-kit and CK7 and lacked S100A1 and vimentin. Cluster B (95% RO) expressed C-kit, S100A1, focal CK7 (single or small clusters of cells) and lacked vimentin. Cluster C comprised a mixture of PRCC and CRCC with no expression of C-kit or CK7 and variable S100A1 and vimentin. PRCC with strong expression of CK7 clustered into group D. A panel of S100A1 (positive) and focal CK7 expression distinguished RO from ChRCC with 91% sensitivity and 93% specificity. A panel of vimentin (negative) and C-kit (positive) distinguished RO from CRCC with 83% sensitivity and 86% specificity and RO from PRCC with 79% sensitivity and 88% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Hierarchical cluster analysis is an effective approach to analyse high-volume immunohistochemical data to generate an optimal panel in the differential diagnosis of oncocytoma from its mimics.

Renal oncocytoma revisited: a clinicopathological study of 109 cases with emphasis on problematic diagnostic features

AIM

To evaluate problematic diagnostic features in renal oncocytoma.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred and nine cases of oncocytoma were reviewed and the problematic gross and microscopic features recorded. Multifocal and bilateral neoplasms were found in 12 (11%) and five (4.6%) cases, respectively. Haemorrhage was seen grossly in 30 (27.5%) neoplasms and a central scar was identified in 35 (32.1%). On microscopy, perinephric fat extension was present in 17 (15.6%) neoplasms and vascular extension was identified in four (3.7%) oncocytomas. Rare mitoses and focal coagulative necrosis were identified in two (1.8%) cases each. Focal clear cell changes were found in 16 (14.7%) oncocytomas, typically within hyalinized areas. Limited foci with chromophobe-like histology (not exceeding 5% of the neoplasm) were found in 13 (11.9%) oncocytomas. In 12 (11%) oncocytomas, rare papillary formations were noted in the lumina of microcysts. Significant nuclear atypia, oncoblasts and entrapped tubules were identified in 27 (24.8%), 41 (37.6%) and 40 (36.7%) neoplasms, respectively. After a median follow-up of 52 months (range 1-113 months), there was no disease recurrence, progression or death attributed to oncocytoma.

CONCLUSIONS

The recognition of the spectrum of morphological changes observed in renal oncocytoma should help pathologists establish a diagnosis of oncocytoma in problematic cases.

Immunohistochemical diagnosis of renal neoplasms

CONTEXT

Histologic diagnosis of renal neoplasm is usually straightforward by routine light microscopy. However, immunomarkers may be essential in several contexts, including differentiating renal from nonrenal neoplasms, subtyping of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and diagnosing rare types of renal neoplasms or metastatic RCC in small biopsy specimens.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review of the diagnostic utility of immunomarkers for renal neoplasms.

DESIGN

This review is based on published literature and personal experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The following markers may have diagnostic utility in various diagnostic contexts: cytokeratins, vimentin, α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase, carbonic anhydrase IX, PAX2, PAX8, RCC marker, CD10, E-cadherin, kidney-specific cadherin, parvalbumin, claudin-7, claudin-8, S100A1, CD82, CD117, TFE3, thrombomodulin, uroplakin III, p63, and S100P. Cytokeratins are uniformly expressed by RCC, albeit in a somewhat limited amount in some subtypes, requiring broad-spectrum anti-CK antibodies, including both low- and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins. PAX2 and PAX8 are sensitive and relatively specific markers for renal neoplasm, regardless of subtype. CD10 and RCC marker are sensitive to renal cell neoplasms derived from proximal tubules, including clear cell and papillary RCCs. Kidney-specific cadherin, parvalbumin, claudin-7, and claudin-8 are sensitive markers for renal neoplasms from distal portions of the nephron, including chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma. CK7 and α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase are sensitive markers for papillary RCC; TFE3 expression is essential in confirming the diagnosis of Xp11 translocation RCC. The potentially difficult differential diagnosis between chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma may be facilitated by S100A1 and CD82. Thrombomodulin, uroplakin III, p63, and S100P are useful markers for urothelial carcinoma. Together with high-molecular-weight cytokeratins, PAX2, and PAX8, they can help differentiate renal pelvic urothelial carcinoma from collecting duct RCC. A sensitive marker for sarcomatoid RCC is still not available. Immunomarkers are most often used for diagnosing metastatic RCC. Compared with primary RCC, expression of the above-mentioned markers is often less frequent and less diffuse in the metastatic setting. Recognizing the variable sensitivity and specificity of these markers, it is important to include at least CD10, RCC marker, PAX2, and PAX8 in the diagnostic panel.

Carbonic anhydrase IX expression in renal neoplasms: correlation with tumor type and grade

Carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), a hypoxia-induced protein, is expressed in some renal tumors. We evaluated its immunohistochemical expression in 317 primary and 42 metastatic renal neoplasms (186 clear cell, 52 papillary, 35 chromophobe, 47 unclassified, and 15 Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinomas [RCCs]; 26 oncocytomas; 2 metanephric adenomas; 1 urothelial carcinoma; 1 mixed epithelial and stromal tumor; and 1 angiomyolipoma); 7 neoplasms were unknown as to whether they were primary or metastatic. We also correlated expression with tumor type and grade. Variable staining was seen in clear cell, papillary, unclassified, and Xp11.2 translocation carcinomas. One chromophobe carcinoma had focal expression. No staining was seen with other tumors. An association was found between high expression and clear cell vs non-clear cell carcinomas with all cases (P < .01) and primary (P < .01) cases. An association between CAIX expression and grade (P < .01) in primary clear cell carcinomas was found. CAIX expression is more common in clear cell RCC than other renal tumor types and is associated with grade.

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC): extended immunohistochemical profile emphasizing novel RCC markers

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) harbor various TFE3 gene fusions, and are known to underexpress epithelial immunohistochemical (IHC) markers such as cytokeratin and EMA relative to usual adult type RCC; however, their profile in reference to other IHC markers that are differentially expressed in other subtypes of RCC has not been systematically assessed. Few therapeutic targets have been identified in these aggressive cancers. We created 2 tissue microarrays (TMA) containing five 1.4-mm cores from each of 21 Xp11 translocation RCC (all confirmed by TFE3 IHC, 6 further confirmed by genetics), 7 clear cell RCC (CCRCC), and 6 papillary RCC (PRCC). These TMA were labeled for a panel of IHC markers. In contrast to earlier published data, Xp11 translocation RCC frequently expressed renal transcription factors PAX8 (16/21 cases) and PAX2 (14/21 cases), whereas only 1 of 21 cases focally expressed MiTF and only 5 of 21 overexpressed p21. Although experimental data suggest otherwise, Xp11 translocation RCC did not express WT-1 (0/21 cases). Although 24% of Xp11 translocation RCC expressed HIF-1alpha (like CCRCC), unlike CCRCC CA IX expression was characteristically only focal (mean 6% cell labeling) in Xp11 translocation RCC. Other markers preferentially expressed in CCRCC or PRCC, such as HIG-2, claudin 7, and EpCAM, yielded inconsistent results in Xp11 translocation RCC. Xp11 translocation RCC infrequently expressed Ksp-cadherin (3/21 cases) and c-kit (0/21 cases), markers frequently expressed in chromophobe RCC. Using an H-score that is the product of intensity and percentage labeling, Xp11 translocation RCC expressed higher levels of phosphorylated S6, a measure of mTOR pathway activation (mean H score=88), than did CCRCC (mean H score=54) or PRCC (mean H score=44). In conclusion, in contrast to prior reports, Xp11 translocation RCC usually express PAX2 and PAX8 but do not usually express MiTF. Although they may express HIF-1alpha, they only focally express the downstream target CA IX. They inconsistently express markers associated with other RCC subtypes, further highlighting the lack of specificity of the latter markers. TFE3 and Cathepsin K remain the most sensitive and specific markers of these neoplasms. Elevated expression of phosphorylated S6 in Xp11 translocation RCC suggests the mTOR pathway as an attractive potential therapeutic target for these neoplasms.

Application of Immunohistochemistry to the Genitourinary System (Prostate, Urinary Bladder, Testis, and Kidney)

Context.—The variety of morphologic patterns of different entities of the genitourinary tract can present a diagnostic dilemma for the pathologist. This is especially true in cases of mimics of cancer, a cancer of unknown primary, or poorly differentiated tumors, in which it is hard to assign histogenesis needed to plan the correct therapy for the patient. Immunohistochemistry offers a better capacity than hematoxylin-eosin staining alone to differentiate human tissue types. Also, in the past decades, several techniques had been developed to differentiate between benign and malignant processes with morphologic overlap. By using immunohistochemistry in selected cases, the rate of false-negative and false-positive diagnoses can be reduced, and some patients are afforded the opportunity to get more specific or effective therapy as a result.

Objective.—For each subgroup of genitourinary system tumors, common diagnostic problems are reviewed, and immunohistochemical markers useful in addressing these problems are discussed, along with expected patterns of immunoreactivity.

Data Sources.—The pertinent literature, with focus on immunohistochemical staining of tumors of the genitourinary tract.

Conclusions.—The addition of immunohistochemistry to the diagnostic armamentarium for genitourinary pathologic diagnosis has increased the sensitivity and specificity of diagnoses and aided in the selection of optional therapeutic regimens in selected cases.

Profiling and classification tree applied to renal epithelial tumours

AIMS

Selection of the relevant combination from a growing list of candidate immunohistochemical biomarkers constitutes a real challenge. The aim was to establish the minimal subset of antibodies to achieve classification on the basis of 12 antibodies and 309 renal tumours.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seventy-nine clear cell (CC), 88 papillary (PAP) and 50 chromophobe (CHRO) renal cell carcinomas, and 92 oncocytomas (ONCO) were immunostained for renal cell carcinoma antigen, vimentin, cytokeratin (CK) AE1-AE3, CK7, CD10, epithelial membrane antigen, alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), c-kit, E-cadherin, Bcl-1, aquaporin 1 and mucin-1 and analysed by tissue microarrays. First, unsupervised hierarchical clustering performed with immunohistochemical profiles identified four main clusters-cluster 1 (CC 67%), 2 (PAP 98%), 3 (CHRO 67%) and 4 (ONCO 100%)-demonstrating the intrinsic classifying potential of immunohistochemistry. A series of classification trees was then automatically generated using Classification And Regression Tree software. The most powerful of these classification trees sequentially used AMACR, CK7 and CD10 (with 86% CC, 87% PAP, 79% CHRO and 78% ONCO correctly classified in a leave-one-out cross-validation test). The classifier was also helpful in 22/30 additional cases with equivocal features.

CONCLUSION

The classification tree method using immunohistochemical profiles can be applied successfully to construct a renal tumour classifier.

Expression analysis of kidney-specific cadherin in a wide spectrum of traditional and newly recognized renal epithelial neoplasms: diagnostic and histogenetic implications

Kidney-specific cadherin (Ksp-cad) is a membrane-associated cell adhesion glycoprotein expressed by the distal nephron tubular cells in its later developmental stages. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma are reported to be variably positive for Ksp-cad with some studies suggesting a discriminatory role for Ksp-cad. Immunoreactivity in other tumors with granular eosinophilic cytoplasm including clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas needs to be clearly elucidated and its expression in emerging novel and other unusual renal epithelial neoplasm subtypes including tumors with uncertain histogenesis is not yet known. In this study, we performed a detailed immunohistochemical analysis for Ksp-cad in a broad range of 136 renal epithelial neoplasms. Reactivity with Ksp-cad was observed in the following tumors: chromophobe renal cell carcinoma [23/25 (92%), diffuse (>50% of tumor cells)] positivity and membranous characteristically accentuating the "plant cell-like" histomorphology of the typical (clear) type, renal oncocytoma [15/20 (75%), usually diffuse staining with predominantly membranous accentuation], papillary renal cell carcinoma [5/17 (29%) all focal to moderate, eosinophilic type or type 2-3/7 (43%), basophilic type or type 1-2/10 (20%)], Xp11 translocation carcinoma [1/4 (25%), diffuse positivity] and clear cell renal cell carcinoma [6/36 (17%) all focal, clear cell renal cell carcinoma with prominent eosinophilic cells 1/7 (14%)]. Immunoreactivity was higher when evaluating whole histologic sections than with tissue microarrays for both chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (100% vs. 60%) and renal oncocytoma (100% vs. 55%). No immunoreactivity was observed in mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinomas (0/23), high-grade collecting duct carcinomas (of Bellini) (0/3), renal medullary carcinomas (0/2), and urothelial carcinomas (0/6). Our study documents the immunoreactivity of Ksp-cad in the range of contemporarily classified renal epithelial neoplasms. The findings argue against the use of Ksp-cad in differentiating chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytomas and further support their relationship to the distal nephron. Ksp-cad may be helpful in distinguishing these two tumor types from clear cell renal cell carcinoma with prominent eosinophilic cells particularly in cases with limited tissue samples (ie, needle core biopsy). In the similar diagnostic setting, caution must be exercised, however, in differentiating chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma from the eosinophilic variant of papillary renal cell carcinoma as moderate expression of Ksp-cad may be observed in papillary renal cell carcinoma. The histogenesis of mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma remains debatable as this tumor does not express Ksp-cad, which is highly expressed normally in the thick ascending loop of Henle and the distal convoluted tubules. In conclusion, Ksp-cad is a useful tumor type associated marker for distinguishing chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma from the wide range of nonintercalated cell-related adult renal epithelial neoplasms; addition of this marker to a panel comprised of other histologic subtype-associated markers may greatly facilitate histologic subclassification of adult renal epithelial neoplasms.

Immunohistochemical analysis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, renal oncocytoma, and clear cell carcinoma: an optimal and practical panel for differential diagnosis

CONTEXT

The separation of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, oncocytoma, and clear cell renal cell carcinoma using light microscopy remains problematic in some cases.

OBJECTIVE

To determine a practical immunohistochemical panel for the differential diagnosis of chromophobe carcinoma.

DESIGN

Vimentin, glutathione S-transferase alpha (GST-alpha), CD10, CD117, cytokeratin (CK) 7, and epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) were investigated in 22 cases of chromophobe carcinoma, 17 cases of oncocytoma, and 45 cases of clear cell carcinoma.

RESULTS

Vimentin and GST-alpha expression were exclusively observed in clear cell carcinoma. CD10 staining was more frequently detected in clear cell carcinoma (91%) than in chromophobe carcinoma (45%) and oncocytoma (29%). CD117 was strongly expressed in chromophobe carcinoma (82%) and oncocytoma (100%), whereas none of the cases of clear cell carcinomas were immunoreactive. Cytokeratin 7 was positive in 18 (86%) of 22 cases of chromophobe carcinoma, whereas all oncocytomas were negative for CK7. EpCAM protein was expressed in all 22 cases of chromophobe carcinoma in more than 90% of cells, whereas all EpCAM-positive oncocytomas (5/17; 29%) displayed positivity in single cells or small cell clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the combination of 3 markers (vimentin, GST-alpha, and EpCAM), we achieved 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the differential diagnosis of chromophobe carcinoma, oncocytoma, and clear cell carcinoma. The pattern of "vimentin(-)/GST-alpha(-)" effectively excluded clear cell carcinoma, and homogeneous EpCAM expression confirmed the diagnosis of chromophobe carcinoma rather than oncocytoma. CD117 and CK7 were also useful markers and could be used as second-line markers for the differential diagnosis, with high specificity (100%) and high sensitivity (90% and 86%, respectively).

Key clinical issues in renal cancer: a challenge for proteomics

Renal cancer has many clinical challenges which proteomics is ideally placed to address. The issues cover all aspects of the disease including diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection and monitoring to detect metastatic disease. In all cases novel biomarkers would considerably help in clinical management and with the relative resistance to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy, a better understanding of the underlying pathogenesis may contribute to the much needed development of novel therapeutic targets and the better use of promising new anti-angiogenic treatments. This review briefly highlights some of the clinical issues and describes proteomics-based approaches generally, before focussing on reviewing the proteomic studies to date in this area.

S100A1: a powerful marker to differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma

AIMS

The common subtypes of renal tumours are conventional, papillary, chromophobe carcinoma and oncocytoma. The morphological differentiation between chromophobe carcinoma and oncocytoma may be difficult. The aim was to evaluate S100A1 as a new marker for the differentiation of the two subtypes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-nine tumour samples [nine clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), six papillary RCCs, nine chromophobe RCCs and 15 oncocytomas] were studied. The protein expression of S100A1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The gene expression of S100A1 was analysed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Nine oncocytomas showed strong immunoreactivity for S100A1. Four oncocytomas were scored as moderate and one as weak reactivity. In total, 14/15 (93%) of oncocytomas were considered to be immunopositive. In contrast, all nine chromophobe RCCs were considered to be immunonegative. There was a significant difference in the positive percentages of staining of S100A1 between these two subtypes (P < 0.01). S100A1 immunoreactivity was observed in 6/9 clear cell and 4/6 papillary carcinomas. The results of S100A1 gene expression corresponded well with the results of immunohistochemistry.

CONCLUSION

S100A1 may be a potentially powerful marker to differentiate the chromophobe RCC from renal oncocytoma.

Morphological approach to tumours of the testis and paratestis

Most neoplastic scrotal masses ultimately prove to be germ cell tumours and are recognisable with routine haematoxylin and eosin-stained sections. The differential diagnosis may be focused, even before reviewing histological sections, by knowledge of patient age, medical history, tumour site (testicular vs paratesticular) and gross findings. Some cases may prove to be diagnostically challenging, including rare tumours, a common tumour with an unusual pattern, a metastatic tumour, or a neoplasm with features that mimic another tumour. Several morphological patterns are seen with some frequency and these generate recurring sets of differential diagnostic considerations. These common patterns include testicular tumours with a predominant diffuse arrangement of cells with pale to clear cytoplasm, tumours with a glandular/tubular pattern, tumours with a microcystic pattern and tumours composed of oxyphilic cells. Intratubular proliferations of atypical cells, paratesticular glandular and/or papillary tumours, or tumours with spindle cell morphology can also be challenging to diagnose correctly. In some problematic cases, immunohistochemical staining may be useful to resolve these differential diagnoses.

Concurrent occurrence of three primary neoplasms with different hystotype in the same kidney, associated with an adenoma of the omolateral adrenal gland: first case report

We present an unusual case of concurrent occurrence of three synchronous primary tumors in the same kidney (oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, angiomyolipoma) associated to an adenoma of the omolateral adrenal gland in a patient with no evident clinical symptoms. The immunohistochemistry showed a positivity for KIT in oncocytoma and chromophobe cell carcinoma, and a weak positivity in the angiomyolipoma, only in the cells positive for HMB-45. This is the first report of this kind of presentation.

Cytohistopathologic hybrid renal cell carcinoma with papillary and clear cell features

Clear cell (CRCC) and papillary (PRCC) renal cell carcinomas (RCC) are the two most frequent subtypes of RCC. In this study, we studied RCC which displayed a hybrid morphology with areas of PRCC and CRCC or which contained papillary structures with clear cell changes (CCC). Consecutive cases of RCC collected over a 12-year period were reviewed to identify RCC with papillary structures and a possible admixture between CRCC and non-oncocytic PRCC. Special stains for glycogen and immunostaining for cytokeratin 7 were applied to sections containing both areas of classical PRCC and PRCC with CCC. Of the total of 541 RCC retrieved, there were 68 non-oncocytic RCC having papillary structures that could be grouped into: (a) group 1 (15 cases), CRCC with areas of papillary formation; (b) group 2a (9 cases), PRCC with extensive CCC with areas of foamy epithelial cells or macrophages; (c) group 2b (18 cases), RCC with areas of classical PRCC with focal CCC; and (d) group 3 (26 cases), RCC with features of groups 2a and 2b and containing areas of classical CRCC. There was a high rate (12/68) of sarcomatous transformation in the study cases. Groups 2 and 3 were associated with a higher rate of vascular invasion, distant metastasis, and mortality than classical PRCC and a higher rate of lymph node metastasis than CRCC. Our study identifies two groups of RCC (referred to as groups 2 and 3) that exhibit characteristic cytohistopathologic hybrid features that set them apart from classical RCC. This type of hybrid tumor seems to be associated with a more aggressive biologic behavior, and its recognition may facilitate the classification of RCC with ambiguous morphology.

Juxtaglomerular cell tumor of kidney with CD34 and CD117 immunoreactivity: report of 5 cases

CONTEXT

Juxtaglomerular cell tumor is a rare renal neoplasm. Renin immunohistochemistry and electron microscopic documentation of rhomboid crystals are the primary methods of diagnosing this benign tumor.

OBJECTIVES

In this retrospective study, we evaluated the morphologic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural features of 5 cases of juxtaglomerular cell tumor to determine the effectiveness of CD34 and CD117 immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of this tumor.

DESIGN

We reviewed 5 cases with clinical, histologic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural aspects.

RESULTS

Three women and 2 men with a mean age of 37.8 years (range, 16-60 years) were included in this study. All patients presented with severe hypertension. All tumors were well circumscribed and ranged from 1.5 cm to 8.5 cm (mean, 4.4 cm). On light microscopic examination, we found solid sheets and nests of tumor cells with oval-to-round nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm. Low-power microscopic examination disclosed a hemangiopericytic vascular pattern. Immunohistochemistry results were as follows: vimentin (positive), renin (weakly positive), smooth muscle actin (focal immunoreactivity), and cytokeratin (negative). All 5 tumors were immunoreactive for CD34 and CD117. Electron microscopy revealed rhomboid crystals in the cytoplasm. Postoperatively, 4 patients were normotensive and 1 patient experienced persistent mild hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that immunohistochemistry for CD34 and CD117 are effective at diagnosing juxtaglomerular cell tumor. Juxtaglomerular cell tumor should be considered in the diagnosis of any renal tumors with epithelioid cells and negative initial cytokeratin immunohistochemistry.

An immunohistochemical approach to the differential diagnosis of renal tumors

Renal neoplasms comprise several distinct clinicopathologic entities with potential prognostic and the rapeutic differences. Although careful morphologic examination using sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin will allow for the correct diagnosis in the majority of cases, there is sufficient overlap between several entities such that ancillary techniques may be necessary to arrive at the correct diagnosis. In routine diagnostic surgical pathology practice of renal tumors, immunohistochemistry is the foremost ancillary technique. Using an approach based on common histologic patterns (tumors with clear cytoplasm, granular cytoplasm, tubulopapillary architecture, spindle cell morphology, small round-cell morphology, and infiltrating poorly differentiated carcinoma), we will discuss the utility of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms. In recent years, needle biopsies from renal masses are being increasingly performed. In these small biopsies, the entire range of cytoarchitectural features that are generally necessary to make a diagnosis may not be fully appreciated. Immunohistochemistry may be helpful in this setting to narrow the differential diagnosis or to arrive at a definitive diagnosis. Finally, the use of immunohistochemistry for the confirmation of metastatic renal cell carcinoma presenting at distant sites will be discussed. Panels of immunohistochemical stains are proposed for different settings, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC) marker, CD10, and vimentin to suggest renal origin of a metastatic tumor, and markers to aid in subclassification of RCC, including parvalbumin and c-kit for chromophobe RCC, and cytokeratin 7 and alpha-methyl-acyl-CoA racemase for papillary RCC.

The use of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of tumors of the testis and paratestis

Although most testicular and paratesticular tumors can be recognized by their light microscopic features, some raise significant differential diagnostic questions. Immunohistochemical staining has proved of significant value in this situation. There is still a role for the traditional markers, including placental-like alkaline phosphatase and alpha-fetoprotein, but newer markers provide additional support and often have greater sensitivity and specificity for many diagnoses. OCT4 is virtually 100% sensitive and specific for seminoma, embryonal carcinoma, and intratubular germ cell neoplasia, unclassified type. Inhibin-alpha, among testicular tumors, is limited to those in the sex cord-stromal category or those having adrenocortical-type differentiation (testicular tumor of the adrenogenital syndrome) or of trophoblastic lineage. Calretinin is another positive marker for the sex cord-stromal tumors but has less specificity. Additional markers, including differential cytokeratins, c-kit, CD30, epithelial membrane antigen, S-100, melan-A, and others, are useful in specific situations. This article reviews the application of immunohistochemical markers for a number of differential diagnostic considerations in the testis and paratestis categorized according to their light microscopic patterns.