A distinct renal tumor has recently been described as "high-grade oncocytic renal tumor" and "sporadic renal cell carcinoma with eosinophilic and vacuolated cytoplasm". The Genitourinary Pathology ...Society (GUPS) consensus proposed a unifying name "eosinophilic vacuolated tumor" (EVT) for this emerging entity. In this multi-institutional study, we evaluated 19 EVTs, particularly their molecular features and mutation profile, using next-generation sequencing. All cases were sporadic and none of the patients had a tuberous sclerosis complex. There were 8 men and 11 women, with a mean age of 47 years (median 50; range 15-72 years). Average tumor size was 4.3 cm (median 3.8 cm; range 1.5-11.5 cm). All patients with available follow-up data (18/19) were alive and without evidence of disease recurrence or progression during the follow-up, ranging from 12 to 198 months (mean 56.3, median 41.5 months). The tumors were well circumscribed, but lacked a well-formed capsule, had nested to solid growth, focal tubular architecture, and showed ubiquitous, large intracytoplasmic vacuoles, round to oval nuclei, and prominent nucleoli. Immunohistochemically, cathepsin K, CD117, CD10, and antimitochondrial antigen were expressed in all cases. Other positive stains included: PAX8, AE1/AE3 and CK18. CK7 was typically restricted only to rare scattered cells. Vimentin, HMB45, melan-A, and TFE3 were negative in all cases. All tumors showed retained SDHB. All cases (19/19) showed non-overlapping mutations of the mTOR pathway genes: TSC1 (4), TSC2 (7), and MTOR (8); one case with MTOR mutation showed a coexistent RICTOR missense mutation. Low mutational rates were found in all samples (ranged from 0 to 6 mutations/Mbp). Microsatellite instability and copy number variations were not found in any of the 17 analyzable cases. EVT represents an emerging renal entity that shows a characteristic and readily identifiable morphology, consistent immunohistochemical profile, indolent behavior, and mutations in either TSC1, TSC2, or MTOR genes.
The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) reviewed recent advances in renal neoplasia, particularly post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, to provide an update on existing ...entities, including diagnostic criteria, molecular correlates, and updated nomenclature. Key prognostic features for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain WHO/ISUP grade, AJCC/pTNM stage, coagulative necrosis, and rhabdoid and sarcomatoid differentiation. Accrual of subclonal genetic alterations in clear cell RCC including SETD2, PBRM1, BAP1, loss of chromosome 14q and 9p are associated with variable prognosis, patterns of metastasis, and vulnerability to therapies. Recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines increasingly adopt immunotherapeutic agents in advanced RCC, including RCC with rhabdoid and sarcomatoid changes. Papillary RCC subtyping is no longer recommended, as WHO/ISUP grade and tumor architecture better predict outcome. New papillary RCC variants/patterns include biphasic, solid, Warthin-like, and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity. For tumors with ‘borderline’ features between oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC, a term “oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, not further classified” is proposed. Clear cell papillary RCC may warrant reclassification as a tumor of low malignant potential. Tubulocystic RCC should only be diagnosed when morphologically pure. MiTF family translocation RCCs exhibit varied morphologic patterns and fusion partners. TFEB-amplified RCC occurs in older patients and is associated with more aggressive behavior. Acquired cystic disease (ACD) RCC-like cysts are likely precursors of ACD-RCC. The diagnosis of renal medullary carcinoma requires a negative SMARCB1 (INI-1) expression and sickle cell trait/disease. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC) can be distinguished from papillary RCC with overlapping morphology by losses of chromosomes 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 22. MTSCC with adverse histologic features shows frequent CDKN2A/2B (9p) deletions. BRAF mutations unify the metanephric family of tumors. The term “fumarate hydratase deficient RCC” (“FH-deficient RCC”) is preferred over “hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome-associated RCC”. A low threshold for FH, 2SC, and SDHB immunohistochemistry is recommended in difficult to classify RCCs, particularly those with eosinophilic morphology, occurring in younger patients. Current evidence does not support existence of a unique tumor subtype occurring after chemotherapy/radiation in early childhood.
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).
Summary Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have been long recognized as distinct tumors; however, it remains unknown if uniform diagnostic criteria are used to distinguish ...these tumor types in practice. A survey was distributed to urologic pathologists regarding oncocytic tumors. Responses were received from 17/26 invitees. Histologically, >1 mitotic figure was regarded as most worrisome (n = 10) or incompatible (n = 6) with oncocytoma diagnosis. Interpretation of focal nuclear wrinkling, focal perinuclear clearing, and multinucleation depended on extent and did not necessarily exclude oncocytoma if minor. Staining techniques most commonly used included: CK7 (94%), KIT (71%), vimentin (65%), colloidal iron (59%), CD10 (53%), and AMACR (41%). Rare CK7-positive cells (≤5%) was regarded as most supportive of oncocytoma, although an extent excluding oncocytoma was not universal. Multiple chromosomal losses were most strongly supportive for chromophobe RCC diagnosis (65%). Less certainty was reported for chromosomal gain or a single loss. For tumors with mixed or inconclusive features, many participants use an intermediate diagnostic category (82%) that does not label the tumor as unequivocally benign or malignant, typically “oncocytic neoplasm” or “tumor” with comment. The term “hybrid tumor” was used variably in several scenarios. A slight majority (65%) report outright diagnosis of oncocytoma in needle biopsies. The morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic characteristics that define oncocytic renal tumors remain incompletely understood. Further studies correlating genetics, behavior, and histology are needed to define which tumors truly warrant classification as carcinomas for patient counseling and follow-up strategies.
Renal tumours include a heterogeneous and diverse spectrum of neoplasms. Recent advances in this field have significantly improved our understanding of the morphological, immunohistochemical, ...molecular, epidemiological and clinical characteristics of renal tumours, which led to the new Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia and the new World Health Organization (WHO) classification of renal cell tumours. This review aims to summarise the new information and evidence on several new and emerging/provisional renal entities, which were mostly generated after the recent classification of renal neoplasia. We include in this review the following new and emerging/provisional renal entities: succinate dehydrogenase‐deficient renal cell carcinoma, thyroid‐like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement‐associated renal cell carcinoma, renal cell carcinomas with prominent smooth muscle stroma, fumarate hydratase‐deficient renal cell carcinoma, biphasic squamoid papillary renal cell carcinoma, eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma, atrophic kidney‐like renal cell carcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma with giant cells and emperipolesis, Warthin‐like papillary renal cell carcinoma, and low‐grade oncocytic renal tumour (CD117‐negative; cytokeratin 7‐positive). Some of these entities, such as succinate dehydrogenase‐deficient renal cell carcinoma, have already been recognised as new entities in the WHO classification, and some have been recognised as provisional/emerging entities. However, we include in this review several additional entities that, on the basis of the published evidence, also warrant this designation. We hope that this review will ease the navigation through this complex and evolving field, and will inform and stimulate new studies and discussions.
Traditionally, papillary renal cell carcinomas (PRCCs) have been divided in two subgroups – type 1 and type 2. Based on recent molecular and genetic developments in the understanding of RCCs, it ...seems that this traditional classification may not be adequate and that the spectrum of PRCCs is much wider than initially proposed. Small series of distinct types of PRCC which do not fit into the above mentioned categories have been described in the literature. Published studies investigating molecular genetic changes in various types of PRCCs have shown that the molecular genetic features are remarkably heterogeneous across the whole spectrum of PRCCs. Of all PRCC subtypes/variants, PRCC type 1 seems to be a genetically uniform group, while other types showed different degrees of heterogeneity. Among different molecular-genetic features, chromosomal numerical aberration status is one of the most frequently studied features so far. It is becoming more evident that tumor type-specific chromosomal numerical aberration status in PRCCs may not exist. In this review, we present the most current knowledge concerning chromosomal numerical aberration status in PRCCs.
•Papillary renal cell carcinomas (PRCCs) have been divided in two subgroups – type 1 and type 2.•Based on recent molecular and genetic developments in the understanding of RCCs, it seems that the spectrum of PRCCs is much wider than initially proposed.•In this review, we present the most current knowledge concerning chromosomal numerical aberration status in PRCCs.•Of all PRCC subtypes/variants, PRCC type 1 seems to be a genetically uniform group, while other types showed different degrees of heterogeneity.•We believe that it may not be possible to distinguish various PRCC subtypes merely based on numerical chromosomal aberration status.
Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) syndrome secondary to germline fumarate hydratase (FH) mutation presents with cutaneous and uterine leiomyomas, and a distinctive aggressive ...renal carcinoma. Identification of HLRCC patients presenting first with uterine leiomyomas may allow early intervention for renal carcinoma. We reviewed the morphology and immunohistochemical (IHC) findings in patients with uterine leiomyomas and confirmed or presumed HLRCC. IHC was also performed on a tissue microarray of unselected uterine leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas. FH-deficient leiomyomas underwent Sanger and massively parallel sequencing on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. All 5 patients with HLRCC had at least 1 FH-deficient leiomyoma: defined as completely negative FH staining with positive internal controls. One percent (12/1152) of unselected uterine leiomyomas but 0 of 88 leiomyosarcomas were FH deficient. FH-deficient leiomyoma patients were younger (42.7 vs. 48.8 y, P=0.024) and commonly demonstrated a distinctive hemangiopericytomatous vasculature. Other features reported to be associated with FH-deficient leiomyomas (hypercellularity, nuclear atypia, inclusion-like nucleoli, stromal edema) were inconstantly present. Somatic FH mutations were identified in 6 of 10 informative unselected FH-deficient leiomyomas. None of these mutations were found in the germline. We conclude that, while the great majority of patients with HLRCC will have FH-deficient leiomyomas, 1% of all uterine leiomyomas are FH deficient usually due to somatic inactivation. Although IHC screening for FH may have a role in confirming patients at high risk for hereditary disease before genetic testing, prospective identification of FH-deficient leiomyomas is of limited clinical benefit in screening unselected patients because of the relatively high incidence of somatic mutations.
Renal medullary carcinomas (RMCs) and collecting duct carcinomas (CDCs) are rare subsets of lethal high-stage, high-grade distal nephron-related adenocarcinomas with a predilection for the renal ...medullary region. Recent findings have established an emerging group of fumarate hydratase (FH)-deficient tumors related to hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC-RCCs) syndrome within this morphologic spectrum. Recently developed, reliable ancillary testing has enabled consistent separation between these tumor types. Here, we present the clinicopathologic features and differences in the morphologic patterns between RMC, CDC, and FH-deficient RCC in consequence of these recent developments. This study included a total of 100 cases classified using contemporary criteria and ancillary tests. Thirty-three RMCs (SMARCB1/INI1-deficient, hemoglobinopathy), 38 CDCs (SMARCB1/INI1-retained), and 29 RCCs defined by the FH-deficient phenotype (FH/2SC or FH/2SC with FH mutation, regardless of HLRCC syndromic stigmata/history) were selected. The spectrum of morphologic patterns was critically evaluated, and the differences between the morphologic patterns present in the 3 groups were analyzed statistically. Twenty-five percent of cases initially diagnosed as CDC were reclassified as FH-deficient RCC on the basis of our contemporary diagnostic approach. Among the different overlapping morphologic patterns, sieve-like/cribriform and reticular/yolk sac tumor-like patterns favored RMCs, whereas intracystic papillary and tubulocystic patterns favored FH-deficient RCC. The tubulopapillary pattern favored both CDCs and FH-deficient RCCs, and the multinodular infiltrating papillary pattern favored CDCs. Infiltrating glandular and solid sheets/cords/nested patterns were not statistically different among the 3 groups. Viral inclusion-like macronucleoli, considered as a hallmark of HLRCC-RCCs, were observed significantly more frequently in FH-deficient RCCs. Despite the overlapping morphology found among these clinically aggressive infiltrating high-grade adenocarcinomas of the kidney, reproducible differences in morphology emerged between these categories after rigorous characterization. Finally, we recommend that definitive diagnosis of CDC should only be made if RMC and FH-deficient RCC are excluded.
ALK rearranged renal cell carcinoma (ALK-RCC) has recently been included in 2016 WHO classification as a provisional entity. In this study, we describe 12 ALK-RCCs from 8 institutions, with detailed ...clinical, pathological, immunohistochemical (IHC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and next generation sequencing (NGS) analyses. Patients' age ranged from 25 to 68 years (mean, 46.3 years). Seven patients were females and five were males (M:F = 1:1.4). Tumor size ranged from 17 to 70 mm (mean 31.5, median 25 mm). The pTNM stage included: pT1a (n = 7), pT1b (n = 1), and pT3a (n = 4). Follow-up was available for 9/12 patients (range: 2 to 153 months; mean 37.6 months); 8 patients were alive without disease and one was alive with distant metastases. The tumors demonstrated heterogeneous, ‘difficult to classify' morphology in 10/12 cases, typically showing diverse architectural and cellular morphologies, including papillary, tubular, tubulocystic, solid, sarcomatoid (spindle cell), rhabdoid, signet-ring cell, and intracytoplasmic vacuoles, often set in a mucinous background. Of the remaining two tumors, one showed morphology resembling mucinous tubular and spindle cell renal cell carcinoma (MTSC RCC-like) and one was indistinguishable from metanephric adenoma. One additional case also showed a focal metanephric adenoma-like area, in an otherwise heterogeneous tumor. By IHC, all tumors were diffusely positive for ALK and PAX8. In both cases with metanephric adenoma-like features, WT1 and ALK were coexpressed. ALK rearrangement was identified in 9/11 tumors by FISH. ALK fusion partners were identified by NGS in all 12 cases, including the previously reported: STRN (n = 3), TPM3 (n = 3), EML4 (n = 2), and PLEKHA7 (n = 1), and also three novel fusion partners: CLIP1 (n = 1), KIF5B (n = 1), and KIAA1217 (n = 1). ALK-RCC represents a genetically distinct entity showing a heterogeneous histomorphology, expanded herein to include unreported metanephric adenoma-like and MTSC RCC-like variants. We advocate a routine ALK IHC screening for “unclassifiable RCCs” with heterogeneous features.
PDF
