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this tumor lies in the pathologists' knowledge, and keeping it up to date through research, thereby limiting the use of outdated nomenclature.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.

An update on the pathology of collecting duct & papillary renal cell carcinoma with a discussion of SNP-Arrays as an emerging laboratory technique

The diagnostic criteria and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved significantly in the last two decades. Increased molecular profiling of RCC has yielded further refinement of existing diagnostic categories. This is particularly true for papillary RCC, which has evolved into multiple molecularly distinct entities. Collecting duct carcinoma, on the other hand, continues to be defined based on traditional histology-based criteria, although it is now possible to exclude various categories of tumors that share overlapping morphologic features. In this context, it is important to note that pathology laboratories have varying degrees of access to complex molecular technologies required to profile tumors in routine clinical practice. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) based copy number profiling represents one modality of testing which is becoming widely available and is being increasingly utilized to profile renal tumors. In this special Seminars issue, we explore the evolution of Collecting Duct & Papillary RCC as diagnostic entities, with a detailed discussion of SNP array-based copy number profiling in contemporary clinical practice.

A contemporary guide to chromosomal copy number profiling in the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma

The routine clinical implementation of molecular methods other than fluorescence in situ hybridization in the evaluation of renal neoplasia is currently limited, as the current standard of care primarily involves a combination of morphologic and immunophenotypic analysis of such tumors. Amongst various molecular techniques, global copy number profiling using single nucleotide polymorphism-based microarrays, colloquially referred to as SNP-arrays, is being increasingly utilized to profile renal tumors, as several subtypes have characteristic recurrent patterns of copy number alterations. Recurrent copy number alterations in common tumor types include loss of chromosome 3p in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), gain of chromosomes 7 and 17 in papillary RCC and multiple losses in chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21 in chromophobe RCC. Such assays are being increasingly utilized in the clinical setting. Herein, we discuss some common clinical applications of such testing that includes high yield diagnostic and prognostic applications. Diagnostic utility includes evaluation of tumor types that are primarily defined by underlying copy number alterations, establishing the underlying subtype in high grade dedifferentiated (unclassified) renal tumors, as well as assessment of loss of heterozygosity, which is an important component in the workup for germline alterations in tumor suppressor genes. Universal adoption of these techniques across clinical laboratories will likely be significantly affected by variables such as cost, reimbursement, and turnaround time.

99mTc-Sestamibi SPECT/CT and histopathological features of oncocytic renal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

^99mTc-Sestamibi Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography (SPECT/CT) contributes to the non-invasive differentiation of renal oncocytoma (RO) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by characterising renal tumours as Sestamibi positive or Sestamibi negative regarding their ^99mTc-Sestamibi uptake compared to the non-tumoral renal parenchyma.

PURPOSE

To determine whether ^99mTc- Sestamibi uptake in renal tumour and the non-tumoral renal parenchyma measured using Standard Uptake Value (SUV) SPECT, has a beneficial role in differentiating RO from RCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-seven renal tumours from 52 patients were evaluated. In addition to visual evaluation of ^99mTc-Sestamibi uptake, SUV_max measurements were performed in the renal tumour and the ipsilateral non-tumoral renal parenchyma. Analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve identified an optimal cut-off value for detecting RO, based on the relative ratio of ^99mTc- Sestamibi uptake.

RESULTS

Semiquantitative evaluation of ^99mTc-Sestamibi uptake did not improve the performance of ^99mTc- Sestamibi SPECT/CT in detecting RO. ^99mTc- Sestamibi SPECT/CT identifies a group of mostly indolent Sestamibi-positive tumours with low malignant potential containing RO, Low-Grade Oncocytic Tumours, Hybrid Oncocytic Tumours, and a subset of chromophobe RCCs.

CONCLUSION

The imaging limitations for accurate differentiation of Sestamibi-positive renal tumours mirror the recognised diagnostic complexities of the histopathologic evaluation of oncocytic neoplasia. Patients with Sestamibi-positive renal tumours could be better suited for biopsy and follow-up, according to the current active surveillance protocols.

Do we need an updated classification of oncocytic renal tumors? : Emergence of low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT) and eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT) as novel renal entities

The category of "oncocytic renal tumors'' includes well-recognized entities, such as renal oncocytoma (RO) and eosinophilic variant of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (eo-ChRCC), as well as a group of "gray zone" oncocytic tumors, with overlapping features between RO and eo-ChRCC that create ongoing diagnostic and classification problems. These types of renal tumors were designated in the past as "hybrid oncocytoma-chromophobe tumors". In a recent update, the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) proposed the term "oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, not further classified", for such solitary and sporadic, somewhat heterogeneous, but relatively indolent tumors, with equivocal RO/eo-ChRCC features. GUPS also proposed that the term "hybrid oncocytic tumor" be reserved for tumors found in a hereditary setting, typically arising as bilateral and multifocal ones (as in Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome). More recent developments in the "gray zone" of oncocytic renal tumors revealed that potentially distinct entities may have been "hidden" in this group. Recent studies distinguished two new entities: "Eosinophilic Vacuolated Tumor" (EVT) and "Low-grade Oncocytic Tumor" (LOT). The rapidly accumulated evidence on EVT and LOT has validated the initial findings and has expanded the knowledge on these entities. Both are uniformly benign and are typically found in a sporadic setting, but rarely can be found in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex. Both have readily distinguishable morphologic and immunohistochemical features that separate them from similar renal tumors, without a need for detailed molecular studies. These tumors very frequently harbor TSC/MTOR mutations that are however neither specific nor restricted to these two entities. In this review, we outline a proposal for a working framework on how to classify such low-grade oncocytic renal tumors. We believe that such framework will facilitate their handling in practice and will stimulate further discussions and studies to fully elucidate their spectrum.

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).

Renal Cell Tumors: Molecular Findings Reshaping Clinico-pathological Practice

Over the past 20 years, the number of subtypes of renal epithelial cell neoplasia has grown. This growth has resulted from detailed histological and immunohistochemical characterization of these tumors and their correlation with clinical outcomes. Distinctive molecular phenotypes have validated the unique nature of many of these tumors. This growth of unique renal neoplasms has continued after the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours. A consequence is that both the pathologists who diagnose the tumors and the clinicians who care for these patients are confronted with a bewildering array of renal cell carcinoma variants. Many of these variants have important clinical features, i.e. familial or syndromic associations, genomics alterations that can be targeted with systemic therapy, and benignancy of tumors previously classified as carcinomas. Our goal in the review is to provide a practical guide to help recognize these variants, based on small and distinct sets of histological features and limited numbers of immunohistochemical stains, supplemented, as necessary, with molecular features.

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.

MDM2-positive papillary sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: a potential diagnostic pitfall

Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma is a highly aggressive form of carcinoma, histologically showing both carcinomatous and mesenchymal component in different proportions. We present a case of advanced type 1 papillary sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma infiltrating adjacent organs and showing positivity for MDM2 by immunohistochemistry and MDM2 amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. This finding, together with sarcomatoid morphology, poses a potential pitfall for diagnosis with dedifferentiated liposarcoma. MDM2 is known to be altered in various human sarcomas. Only recently, MDM2 alterations have been reported in carcinomas. The presented case illustrates the need of thorough sampling with clinic-pathological correlation before making a final diagnosis in sarcomatoid retroperitoneal tumours. Additionally, the potential clinical implications of MDM2 amplification in renal cell carcinoma are discussed.

Assessing Genomic Copy Number Alterations as Best Practice for Renal Cell Neoplasia: An Evidence-Based Review from the Cancer Genomics Consortium Workgroup

Renal cell neoplasia are heterogeneous with diverse histology, genetic alterations, and clinical behavior that are diagnosed mostly on morphologic features. The Renal Cell Neoplasia Workgroup of the Cancer Genomics Consortium systematically evaluated peer-reviewed literature on genomic studies of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, chromophobe RCC, and the translocation RCC involving TFE3, TFEB and MITF rearrangements, as well as benign oncocytoma, which together comprise about 95% of all renal cell neoplasia. The Workgroup curated recurrent copy number alterations (CNAs), copy-neutral loss-of-heterozygosity (cnLOH), rearrangements, and mutations, found in each subtype and assigned clinical relevance according to established criteria. In clear cell RCC, loss of 3p has a disease-initiating role and most likely also in progression with mutations detected in VHL and other genes mapped to this arm, and loss of 9p and/or 14q has well-substantiated prognostic utility. Gain of chromosomes 7 and 17 are hallmark CNAs of papillary RCC, but patterns of other CNAs as detected by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) afford sub-classification into Type 1 and 2 with prognostic value, and for further sub-stratification of Type 2. Inherent chromosome loss in chromophobe RCC as detected by CMA is useful for distinguishing the eosinophilic variant from benign oncocytoma which in contrast exhibits few CNAs or rearranged CCND1, but share mitochondrial DNA mutations. In morphologically atypical RCCs, rearrangement of TFE3 and TFEB should be considered in the differential diagnosis, portending an aggressive RCC subtype. Overall, this evidence-based review provides a validated role for assessment of CNAs in renal cell neoplasia in the clinical setting to assist in renal cell neoplasm diagnosis and sub-classification within subtypes that is integral to the management of patients, from small incidentally found renal masses to larger surgically resected specimens, and simultaneously identify the presence of key alterations portending outcome in malignant RCC subtypes.

TFEB Expression Profiling in Renal Cell Carcinomas: Clinicopathologic Correlations

TFEB is overexpressed in TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas as well as in renal tumors with amplifications of TFEB at 6p21.1. As recent literature suggests that renal tumors with 6p21.1 amplification behave more aggressively than those with rearrangements of TFEB, we compared relative TFEB gene expression in these tumors. This study included 37 TFEB-altered tumors: 15 6p21.1-amplified and 22 TFEB-rearranged (including 5 cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas data set). TFEB status was verified using a combination of fluorescent in situ hybridization (n=27) or comprehensive molecular profiling (n=13) and digital droplet polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify TFEB mRNA expression in 6p21.1-amplified (n=9) and TFEB-rearranged renal tumors (n=19). These results were correlated with TFEB immunohistochemistry. TFEB-altered tumors had higher TFEB expression when normalized to B2M (mean: 168.9%, n=28), compared with non-TFEB-altered controls (mean: 7%, n=18, P=0.005). Interestingly, TFEB expression in tumors with rearrangements (mean: 224.7%, n=19) was higher compared with 6p21.1-amplified tumors (mean: 51.2%, n=9; P=0.06). Of note, classic biphasic morphology was only seen in TFEB-rearranged tumors and when present correlated with 6.8-fold higher TFEB expression (P=0.00004). Our results suggest that 6p21.1 amplified renal tumors show increased TFEB gene expression but not as much as t(6;11) renal tumors. These findings correlate with the less consistent/diffuse expression of downstream markers of TFEB activation (cathepsin K, melan A, HMB45) seen in the amplified neoplasms. This suggests that the aggressive biological behavior of 6p21.1 amplified renal tumors might be secondary to other genes at the 6p21.1 locus that are co-amplified, such as VEGFA and CCND3, or other genetic alterations.

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.