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

Malignancies arising in allograft kidneys, with a first reported translocation RCC post-transplantation: A case series

BACKGROUND

The increased risk of malignancy in the post-renal transplant population has been well documented. Renal carcinoma is more common in this population, usually arising in native kidneys. Rarely, tumors arise in the transplanted kidney. Our case series reports four cases of malignancy in allograft kidneys, one of which is a first reported case of translocation RCC in a transplanted kidney.

METHODS

The renal transplantation database (1584 patients) at St. Michael's Hospital was reviewed for malignancies arising in allograft kidneys: reports and pathology slides were reviewed.

RESULTS

Four cases of malignancies arising in the allograft kidney were identified among our kidney transplant population. One patient developed a high grade urothelial carcinoma in the donor kidney post BK virus infection. The other 3 cases were renal cell carcinomas: one clear cell renal cell carcinoma, one translocation renal cell carcinoma, and one papillary renal cell carcinoma. The translocation renal cell cancer had confirmed TFE3 protein over-expression by immunohistochemistry. Molecular testing of the tumors in all 4 cases identified two separate genetic profiles, favored to represent tumors arising from donor tissues along with infiltrating recipient lymphocytes.

DISCUSSION

Previous reports suggested that epithelial malignancies in allograft kidneys are rare. We identified 4 such tumors in 1584 transplant patients. Further, we identified the first reported case of translocation RCC in an allograft kidney. While the rate of malignancy in allograft kidneys is low, screening of the donor kidneys by ultrasound and/or urine cytology may be of use in detecting these lesions.

Papillary or pseudopapillary tumors of the kidney

Papillary architecture is one of the most common morphological patterns in renal cell neoplasms. Many renal cell neoplasms can also exhibit, diffusely or focally, papillary growth pattern. This article reviews all the renal cell neoplasms with papillary or pseudopapillary architecture, with an emphasis on recently described new histological types. New insights into the "old" entities, including their immunohistochemical and genetic features, will also be discussed.

MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma

The MiT subfamily of transcription factors includes TFE3, TFEB, TFC, and MiTF. Gene fusions involving two of these transcription factors have been identified in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The Xp11 translocation RCCs were first officially recognized in the 2004 WHO renal tumor classification, and harbor gene fusions involving TFE3. The t(6;11) RCCs harbor a specific Alpha-TFEB gene fusion and were first officially recognized in the 2013 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia. These two subtypes of translocation RCC have many similarities. Both were initially described in and disproportionately involve young patients, though adult translocation RCC may overall outnumber pediatric cases. Both often have unusual and distinctive morphologies; the Xp11 translocation RCCs frequently have clear cells with papillary architecture and abundant psammomatous bodies, while the t(6;11) RCCs frequently have a biphasic appearance with both large and small epithelioid cells and nodules of basement membrane material. However, the morphology of these two neoplasms can overlap, with one mimicking the other. Both of these RCCs underexpress epithelial immunohistochemical markers like cytokeratin and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) relative to most other RCCs. Unlike other RCCs, both frequently express the cysteine protease cathepsin k and often express melanocytic markers like HMB45 and Melan A. Finally, TFE3 and TFEB have overlapping functional activity as these two transcription factors frequently heterodimerize and bind to the same targets. Therefore, on the basis of clinical, morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic similarities, the 2013 ISUP Vancouver classification of renal neoplasia grouped these two neoplasms together under the heading of "MiT family translocation RCC." This review summarizes our current knowledge of these recently described RCCs.

Renal cell carcinoma with angioleiomyoma-like stroma: clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features supporting classification as a distinct entity

Rare renal epithelial neoplasms have been recognized to have an angioleiomyoma or leiomyoma-like proliferation of stromal smooth muscle; however, the nature of these tumors and their relationships to other renal cell carcinomas are poorly understood. We analyzed 23 such tumors for their clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic features using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Twelve showed a homogeneous combination of features and were reclassified as renal cell carcinoma with angioleiomyoma-like stroma. These were composed of neoplastic glandular structures lined by cells with mixed clear, pale, and eosinophilic cytoplasm forming occasional papillary tufts. The stroma resembled smooth muscle and often extended away from the epithelial component, entrapping perinephric fat or non-neoplastic renal elements. Immunohistochemistry showed the epithelium to have reactivity for: carbonic anhydrase IX, CD10, vimentin, cytokeratin 7, cytokeratin 34βE12, and PAX8 but not α-methylacyl-coA-racemase. The stroma labeled for smooth muscle (smooth muscle actin 3+, desmin 1+, caldesmon 3+) but not epithelial antigens. Neither component showed substantial reactivity for HMB45, melan-A, cathepsin K, or TFE3 protein. An interrupted, conspicuous layer of CD34-positive endothelial cells rimmed the epithelium, imparting a two-cell layer pattern resembling myoepithelial or basal cells. Chromosome 3p deletion and trisomy 7 and 17 were uniformly absent. Follow-up was available for three patients, none of whom experienced malignant behavior. Eleven tumors were excluded from this category and considered to be clear cell renal cell carcinoma with a reactive proliferation of smooth muscle (n=4) or tangential sectioning of the pseudocapsule (n=2), renal cell carcinoma unclassified (n=4), or clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (n=1). In summary, renal cell carcinoma with angioleiomyoma-like stroma is a distinct neoplasm with characteristic morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features, unrelated to clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The immunoprofile overlaps partly with that of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma, though morphology and reactivity for CD10 are points of contrast.

Diagnostic approach to eosinophilic renal neoplasms

CONTEXT

Eosinophilic renal neoplasms include a spectrum of solid and papillary tumors ranging from indolent benign oncocytoma to highly aggressive malignancies. Recognition of the correct nature of the tumor, especially in biopsy specimens, is paramount for patient management.

OBJECTIVE

To review the diagnostic approach to eosinophilic renal neoplasms with light microscopy and ancillary techniques.

DATA SOURCES

Review of the published literature and personal experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The following tumors are in the differential diagnosis of oncocytic renal cell neoplasm: oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hybrid tumor, tubulocystic carcinoma, papillary RCC, clear cell RCC with predominant eosinophilic cell morphology, follicular thyroid-like RCC, hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC, acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, rhabdoid RCC, microphthalmia transcription factor translocation RCC, epithelioid angiomyolipoma, and unclassified RCC. In low-grade nonpapillary eosinophilic neoplasms, distinction between oncocytoma and low-grade RCC mostly rests on histomorphology; however, cytokeratin 7 immunostain may be helpful. In high-grade nonpapillary lesions, there is more of a role for ancillary techniques, including immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin 7, CA9, CD10, racemase, HMB45, and Melan-A. In papillary eosinophilic neoplasms, it is important to distinguish sporadic type 2 papillary RCC from microphthalmia transcription factor translocation and hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC. Histologic and cytologic features along with immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization tests for TFE3 (Xp11.2) and TFEB [t(6;11)] are reliable confirmatory tests. Eosinophilic epithelial neoplasms with architecture, cytology, and/or immunoprofile not qualifying for either of the established types of RCC should be classified as unclassified eosinophilic RCC and arbitrarily assigned a grade (low or high).

Differential diagnosis of renal tumors with tubulopapillary architecture in children and young adults: a case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Tumors of the kidney are uncommon in children and young adults. Accurate classification is crucial for both prognostication and therapeutic intervention. However, majority of the tumors in this age group have unusual morphology that renders classification challenging. Tubulopapillary architecture is one of the most common morphological patterns observed in renal tumors of children and young adults.

METHODS

A patient with epithelial predominant Wilms tumor was reported. Differential diagnosis of renal tumors with tubulopapillary morphology was discussed with an emphasis on the histological and immunohistochemical features, and the literature was reviewed.

RESULTS

A 25 year-old female patient presented with bilateral multilocular cystic masses. She underwent right radical nephrectomy and left partial nephrectomy. The pathological examination revealed a tumor with tubulopapillary architecture which was lined with low columnar epithelial cells. During the work-up of this case, several entities were considered and ruled out by careful gross, microscopic examination and prudent use of immunohistochemistry. The tumor cells were positive for WT-1, and variably positive for cytokeratin AE1/3, CD56, CD57, and negative for cytokeratin 7 and EMA. Fluorescent in-situ hybridization revealed no gain of chromosome 7 and 17. A diagnosis of epithelial predominant adult Wilms tumors was rendered for both kidneys. The patient received systemic chemotherapy and radiation to the remnant left kidney and was free of disease three years after the initial surgery.

CONCLUSION

The differential diagnosis of renal tumors with tubulopapillary features in children and young adults include papillary renal cell carcinoma, metanephric adenoma, epithelial predominant Wilms tumor, translocation renal cell carcinoma and metastatic adenocarcinoma to the kidney. An accurate classification relies on careful examination of clinical and pathological features and immunohistochemical characteristics.

Diagnosis of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma on Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology

Fine-needle aspiration has assumed an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and management of patients with advanced stage cancer. Given its predilection for metastases to distant sites and organs at the time of presentation, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is not infrequently encountered in the setting of fine-needle aspiration for initial diagnosis. In some instances, fine-needle aspiration may be the only opportunity to obtain diagnostic tissue to diagnose and subclassify RCC. Therefore, cytopathologists and cytotechnologists should be familiar with and recognize the cytomorphology of RCC and the ancillary studies that can be used to confirm and subclassify RCC. Herein, we describe a case of metastatic RCC initially diagnosed on fine-needle aspiration, discuss the cytomorphologic features of RCC subtypes, and review pertinent ancillary immunohistochemical and cytogenetic adjuncts.

Molecular genetics and cellular features of TFE3 and TFEB fusion kidney cancers

Despite nearly two decades passing since the discovery of gene fusions involving TFE3 or TFEB in sporadic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the molecular mechanisms underlying the renal-specific tumorigenesis of these genes remain largely unclear. The recently published findings of The Cancer Genome Atlas Network reported that five of the 416 surveyed clear cell RCC tumours (1.2%) harboured SFPQ-TFE3 fusions, providing further evidence for the importance of gene fusions. A total of five TFE3 gene fusions (PRCC-TFE3, ASPSCR1-TFE3, SFPQ-TFE3, NONO-TFE3, and CLTC-TFE3) and one TFEB gene fusion (MALAT1-TFEB) have been identified in RCC tumours and characterized at the mRNA transcript level. A multitude of molecular pathways well-described in carcinogenesis are regulated in part by TFE3 or TFEB proteins, including activation of TGFβ and ETS transcription factors, E-cadherin expression, CD40L-dependent lymphocyte activation, mTORC1 signalling, insulin-dependent metabolism regulation, folliculin signalling, and retinoblastoma-dependent cell cycle arrest. Determining which pathways are most important to RCC oncogenesis will be critical in discovering the most promising therapeutic targets for this disease.

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.

Molecular subtyping of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: implications for targeted therapy

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is known for its ability to metastasize synchronously or metachronously to various anatomic sites. Distinguishing histologic subtypes of metastatic RCC has become increasingly important, as prognosis and therapy can differ dramatically between subtypes. We propose a combination of immunohistochemistry (IHC) and molecular cytogenetics for subtyping metastatic RCC in light of these potential therapeutic implications.

RESULTS

Specimens from 103 cases of metastatic RCC were retrieved, including 32 cases originally diagnosed as metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), 8 as metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC), and 63 metastatic RCC without a specific subtype. Immunohistochemistry was performed with antibodies against cytokeratin 7 (CK7) and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR). Dual color interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization was utilized to assess for deletion of chromosome 3p and trisomy of chromosomes 7 and 17 in all tumors. Chromosome 3p deletion was detected in 41% of all metastatic RCC specimens, and trisomy of chromosomes 7 and/or 17 was detected in 16%. Of metastatic CCRCC, chromosome 3p deletion was detected in 63%. Of metastatic PRCC, 75% showed trisomy of chromosomes 7 and/or 17. Of the tumors not previously classified, 6% were positive for CK7, and 64% were positive for AMACR; 35% showed chromosome 3p deletion, and 16% showed trisomy of chromosomes 7 and/or 17. Combined analysis of immunohistochemistry and cytogenetics enabled reclassification of 52% of these metastatic tumors not previously classified.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the utility of immunohistochemistry and cytogenetics for subtyping metastatic RCC.

Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma with PSF-TFE3 rearrangement

Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma (Xp11.2 RCC) is a subtype of RCC characterized by translocations involving a breakpoint at the TFE3 gene (Xp11.2). Moderate to strong nuclear TFE3 immunoreactivity has been recognized as a specific diagnostic marker for this type of tumor. However, exclusive cytoplasmic localization of a TFE3 fusion protein was reported in UOK 145 cells, a cell line derived from an Xp11.2 RCC harboring the PSF-TFE3 translocation. If reproducible using immunohistochemistry (IHC), this finding would have important implications for pathologists in the diagnosis of Xp11.2 RCC, calling into question the specificity of nuclear immunoreactivity for TFE3 in these tumors. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the above-noted cytoplasmic localization of the TFE3 fusion protein could be reproduced using IHC. UOK 145 cells and fresh frozen tissue from 2 clinical cases of Xp11.2 RCC found to harbor the PSF-TFE3 gene rearrangement (by cytogenetic testing) were collected. All samples were subjected to histopathologic evaluation by board-certified pathologists, TFE3 IHC, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, and Sanger sequencing analysis. A strong nuclear TFE3 immunoreactivity was demonstrated in all samples including the UOK 145 cell line. No cytoplasmic immunoreactivity was seen. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing confirmed the previously reported PSF-TFE3 gene fusion between exon 9 of PSF and exon 6 of TFE3 in the UOK 145 cell line and in one of 2 clinical cases of Xp11.2 RCC. A novel PSF-TFE3 gene fusion between exon 9 of PSF and exon 5 of TFE3 was detected in the second clinical case of Xp11.2 RCC.

Defining early-onset kidney cancer: implications for germline and somatic mutation testing and clinical management

PURPOSE

Approximately 5% to 8% of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is hereditary. No guidelines exist for patient selection for RCC germline mutation testing. We evaluate how age of onset could indicate the need for germline mutation testing for detection of inherited forms of kidney cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed the age distribution of RCC cases in the SEER-17 program and in our institutional hereditary kidney cancer population. The age distributions were compared by sex, race, histology, and hereditary cancer syndrome. Models were established to evaluate the specific age thresholds for genetic testing.

RESULTS

The median age of patients with RCC in SEER-17 was 64 years, with the distribution closely approaching normalcy. Statistical differences were observed by race, sex, and subtype (P < .05). The bottom decile cutoff was ≤ 46 years of age and slightly differed by sex, race, and histology. The mean and median ages at presentation of 608 patients with hereditary kidney cancer were 39.3 years and 37 years, respectively. Although age varied by specific syndrome, 70% of these cases were found to lie at or below the bottom age decile. Modeling age-based genetic testing thresholds demonstrated that the 10th percentile maximized sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

Early age of onset might be a sign of hereditary RCC. Even in the absence of clinical manifestations and personal/family history, an age of onset of 46 years or younger should trigger consideration for genetic counseling/germline mutation testing and may serve as a useful cutoff when establishing genetic testing guidelines.

Discovery and validation of urinary biomarkers for detection of renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is often accompanied by non-specific symptoms. The increase of incidentally discovered small renal masses also presents a diagnostic dilemma. This study investigates whether RCC-specific peptides with diagnostic potential can be detected in urine and whether a combination of such peptides could form a urinary screening tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the discovery of RCC-specific biomarkers, we have employed CE-MS to analyze urine samples from patients with RCC (N=40) compared to non-diseased controls (N=68).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

86 peptides were found to be specifically associated to RCC, of which sequence could be obtained for 40. A classifier based on these peptides was evaluated in an independent set of 76 samples, resulting in 80% sensitivity and 87% specificity. The specificity of the marker panel was further validated in a historical dataset of 1077 samples including age-matched controls (N=218), patients with related cancer types and renal diseases (N=859). In silico protease prediction based on the cleavage sites of differentially excreted peptides, suggested modified activity of certain proteases including cathepsins, ADAMTS and kallikreins some of which were previously found to be associated to RCC.

CONCLUSIONS

RCC can be detected with high accuracy based on specific urinary peptides.

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has the highest incidence among the renal malignancies, often presenting non-specific or no symptoms at all. Moreover, with no diagnostic marker being available so far, almost 30% of the patients are diagnosed with metastatic disease and 30-40% of the patients initially diagnosed with localized tumor relapse. These facts introduce the clinical need of early diagnosis. This study is focused on the investigation of a marker model based on urinary peptides, as a tool for the detection of RCC in selected patients at risk. Upon evaluation of the marker model in an independent blinded set of 76 samples, 80% sensitivity and 87% specificity were reported. An additional dataset of 1077 samples was subsequently employed for further evaluation of the specificity of the classifier.

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma in adults: a clinicopathological and comparative genomic hybridization study

To study the clinicopathological and genomic characteristics of Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma (Xp11.2 RCC) in adults, we analyzed 9 Xp11.2 RCCs, confirmed by transcription factor E3 (TFE3) immunohistochemistry, in patients aged ≥20 years. TFE3 expression was also determined in 12 cases of alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) served as a positive control. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was used to investigate genomic imbalances in all Xp11.2 RCC cases. Most of our Xp11.2 RCC patients (5/9) presented with TNM stages 3-4, and 6 patients died 10 months to 7 years after their operation. Histologically, Xp11.2 RCC was composed of a mixed papillary nested/alveolar growth pattern (8/9). Immunostaining showed that all Xp11.2 RCC and ASPS cases had strong TFE3 expression and high positive ratios for p53 and vimentin. However, there were significant differences in the expression of AMACR (p<0.001), AE1/AE3 (p=0.002), and CD10 (p=0.024) between the 2 diseases. CGH profiles showed chromosomal imbalances in all 9 Xp11.2 RCC cases; gains were observed in chromosomes Xp11 (6/9), 7q20-25, 12q25-31 (5/9), 7p16-24 (4/9), 8p12-13, 8q20-21, 16q20-22, 17q25-26, 20q22-23 (4/9), and losses occurred frequently on chromosomes 3p12-16, 9q31-32, 14q22-24 (4/9). Our Conclusions show Xp11.2 RCC that occur in adults may be aggressive cancers, the expressions of AMACR, CD10, AE1/AE3 are helpful in the differential diagnosis between Xp11.2 RCC and ASPS, and CGH assay is a useful complementary method for confirming the diagnosis of Xp11.2 RCC.

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.

Utilization of a TFE3 break-apart FISH assay in a renal tumor consultation service

Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are characterized by chromosome translocations involving the Xp11.2 breakpoint, resulting in gene fusions involving the TFE3 transcription factor. In archival material, the diagnosis can often be confirmed by TFE3 immunohistochemistry (IHC), but variable fixation (especially prevalent in consultation material) can lead to equivocal results. A TFE3 break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay has been developed to detect TFE3 gene rearrangements; however, the utility of this assay in a renal tumor consultation practice has not been examined. We reviewed 95 consecutive renal tumor consultation cases submitted to rule in or rule out Xp11 translocation RCC. Thirty-one cases were positive for TFE3 rearrangements by FISH. Patients ranged from 6 to 67 years of age (mean=30 y; median=28 y). Novel or distinctive morphologic features of these cases included extensive cystic change simulating multilocular cystic RCC (3 cases), sarcomatoid transformation (3 cases), oncocytic areas mimicking oncocytoma (1 case), trabecular architecture mimicking a carcinoid tumor (1 case), colonization of renal pelvic urothelium mimicking urothelial carcinoma in situ (1), and focal desmin and diffuse racemase immunoreactivity (1 case each). Twenty-six of the 31 TFE3 FISH-positive RCCs were unequivocally positive for TFE3 by IHC, but 4 were equivocal, and 1 was negative. Of the 64 cases that were negative by TFE3 FISH, 50 were negative by TFE3 IHC, and 14 were equivocal. Thirty-two of the 64 TFE3 FISH-negative cases could be classified into other accepted RCC subtypes: 23 as clear cell RCC, 5 as papillary RCC, 3 as clear cell papillary RCC, and 1 as chromophobe RCC. The other 32 cases remained unclassified, including 3 cathepsin K-positive RCC that closely resembled Xp11 translocation RCC. In conclusion, TFE3 FISH is highly useful in renal tumor consultation material, often resolving cases with equivocal TFE3 IHC results. Given the difficulty of optimizing TFE3 IHC, TFE3 FISH is for most laboratories the optimal test for establishing the diagnosis of Xp11 translocation RCC.

Clinical implications of current developments in genitourinary pathology

CONTEXT

Several developments in genitourinary pathology are likely to change our understanding and management of some genitourinary cancers considerably.

OBJECTIVE

To review 5 stories in genitourinary pathology: (1) fusion in the ETS (E26) gene family in prostatic adenocarcinoma; (2) insulin-like growth factor II messenger RNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3), an important prognostic biomarker for kidney and bladder cancers; (3) translocation renal cell carcinoma; (4) UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization test in urine cytology for detection of bladder cancer; and (5) the use of triple immunostaining for diagnosis of prostate cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Literature review and authors' personal experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Many scientific findings have contributed recently to the understanding of the natural pathogenesis and progression of genitourinary cancers. This translational research helps in diagnosing, predicting, and potentially, treating genitourinary cancers.

Radiologic-pathologic correlation of renal cell carcinoma associated with Xp11.2 translocation

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of translocation RCCs in adult patients is relatively poor compared to that of other subtypes of RCCs. Although there have been several reports regarding radiologic findings of translocation RCC, studies with histologic correlation could help to understand the imaging features.

PURPOSE

To explore the correlation between radiologic and pathologic findings in Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and provide clues for translocation RCC diagnosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

CT scans of six patients (one man and five women; age range, 8-71 years; mean age, 34 years) with histologically-proven Xp11.2 translocation RCCs were retrospectively evaluated in consensus by two radiologists. Tumor size, presence of necrosis, hemorrhage, fat or calcification, enhancement patterns of the tumor, presence of lymphadenopathy, and distant metastases were evaluated.

RESULTS

The average size of the tumors was 6 cm (range, 2.7-12 cm). All six tumors appeared as well-defined masses with areas of low attenuation representing hemorrhage or necrosis. Four tumors contained high attenuating solid portions, compared to the surrounding renal cortex seen on unenhanced images, where representing dense cellular component on microscopic examination. Peripheral rim enhancement pattern that correlated with histologic finding of a fibrous capsule was seen in five cases. In two patients who underwent kidney MR, the masses showed low signal intensity on T2-weighted images. One patient had lymphadenopathy. No distant metastasis was noted in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Translocation RCC appeared as a well-defined mass that contain high attenuating solid portions on unenhanced images and low attenuating necrotic or hemorrhagic foci; the tumor also showed gradual peripheral rim enhancement due to a fibrous capsule surrounding the tumor.

Value of PAX8, PAX2, napsin A, carbonic anhydrase IX, and claudin-4 immunostaining in distinguishing pleural epithelioid mesothelioma from metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Both mesotheliomas and renal cell carcinomas can present a wide variety of cytomorphologic features and histologic patterns. Because of this, renal cell carcinomas metastatic to the pleura and lung can be confused with mesotheliomas. Recently, a variety of positive carcinoma markers, including kidney-associated markers, have become available. The aim of this study is to investigate the value of some of these markers, specifically PAX8, PAX2, napsin A, carbonic anhydrase IX, and claudin-4, for assisting in distinguishing pleural epithelioid mesotheliomas from metastatic renal cell carcinomas. To do so, a total of 40 pleural epithelioid mesotheliomas and 55 renal cell carcinomas (33 clear cell, 10 papillary, and 12 chromophobe) were investigated. In all, 91% of the renal cell carcinomas expressed claudin-4, 89% PAX8, 60% PAX2, 71% carbonic anhydrase IX, and 29% napsin A. All of the mesotheliomas were positive for carbonic anhydrase IX and were negative for all of the other markers. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that claudin-4 and PAX8 have a higher sensitivity and specificity for assisting in discriminating between pleural epithelioid mesotheliomas and renal cell carcinomas when compared with all of the other positive carcinoma markers that are, at present, recommended to be included in the immunohistochemical panels used in this differential diagnosis. Even though PAX2 and napsin A are highly specific, because of their low sensitivity, they have only a limited value. Carbonic anhydrase IX is not useful.

PAX8 expression in sporadic hemangioblastoma of the kidney supports a primary renal cell lineage: implications for differential diagnosis

Hemangioblastoma is a benign, morphologically distinctive neoplasm of disputed histogenesis that typically occurs in the central nervous system either in the setting of von Hippel-Lindau disease or more often sporadically. Extraneural hemangioblastoma is exceptional and raises a challenging differential diagnosis. Herein, we report a primary renal hemangioblastoma occurring in 51-year-old woman without stigmata of von Hippel-Lindau disease. Histologically, the tumor was composed of sheets of polygonal epithelioid stromal cells with ample pale or eosinophilic, vacuolated cytoplasm in an arborizing capillary network. Tumor cells showed variable nuclear pleomorphism, intranuclear cytoplasmic invaginations, scattered hyaline globules, and psammoma-like calcifications. Some areas showed branching hemangiopericytoma-like vessels with tumor cells radiating from the wall, while other areas were edematous and hyalinized with sparse stromal cells and abundant reticular vessels. Immunohistochemically, the tumor cells reacted strongly and diffusely with antibodies to PAX8, CD10, α-inhibin, S100 protein, neuron-specific enolase, and vimentin, and they showed focal positivity with antibodies to epithelial membrane antigen and AE1/AE3. Tumor cells were negative for CK7, CK8/18, RCC antigen, synaptophysin, chromogranin, c-kit, D2-40, HMB45, melan-A, cathepsin K, SMA, desmin, CD31, CD34, and estrogen and progesterone receptors. Positive immunoreactivity for PAX8 is unexpected and contrasts to central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastomas, which are essentially always negative for PAX8. This novel finding adds support to the hypothesis that the immunoprofile of extraneural hemangioblastoma varies with site of origin, perhaps as a result of tumor cell lineage and retention of organ-specific markers or acquisition of site-specific antigens due to local factors.

Differential diagnosis of renal tumors with clear cytoplasm: clinical relevance of renal tumor subclassification in the era of targeted therapies and personalized medicine

CONTEXT

The World Health Organization classification of renal tumors synthesizes morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings to define more than 40 tumor types. Of these, clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma is the most common malignant tumor in adults and-with the exception of some rare tumors-the most deadly. The diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma on morphologic grounds alone is generally straightforward, but challenging cases are not infrequent. A misdiagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma has clinical consequences, particularly in the current era of targeted therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To highlight morphologic mimics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma and provide strategies to help differentiate clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other renal tumors and lesions. The role of the pathologist in guiding treatment for renal malignancies will be emphasized to stress the importance of proper tumor classification in patient management.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature and personal experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In challenging cases, submission of additional tissue is often an inexpensive and effective way to facilitate a correct diagnosis. If immunohistochemical stains are to be used, it is best to use a panel of markers, as no one marker is specific for a given renal tumor subtype. Selection of limited markers, based on a specific differential diagnosis, can be as useful as a large panel in reaching a definitive diagnosis. For renal tumors, both the presence and absence of immunoreactivity and the pattern of labeling (membranous, cytoplasmic, diffuse, focal) are important when interpreting the results of immunohistochemical stains.

Evolving therapeutic targets in renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent developments in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) will be discussed, with emphasis on data published over the past year. The genetics and molecular biology of the various histologic subtypes of kidney cancer will be reviewed, as these subtle yet important genomic and metabolic alterations provide the opportunity for rational drug development and personalized treatment regimens.

RECENT FINDINGS

Additional targeted agents continue to be added to the uro-oncologist's armamentarium in the fight against metastatic kidney cancer. Targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptor, or the mammalian target of rapamycin complex, remains the foundation of systemic treatment. In clear cell RCC, increased emphasis is being placed on target selectivity and affinity in a bid to diminish off-target toxicity without compromising efficacy. Combination strategies targeting multiple pathways simultaneously continue to be explored. Histology-specific protocols testing later generation and novel agents in nonclear cell RCC should be made a priority, as there is still not a single drug approved specifically for a nonclear cell indication.

SUMMARY

The number of approved treatments for advanced RCC continues to grow, but additional work is needed to further delineate the optimal drug, combination of agents, or sequence best suited to each subtype of RCC.

The multislice CT findings of renal carcinoma associated with XP11.2 translocation/TFE gene fusion and collecting duct carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma associated with Xp11.2 translocation and TFE gene fusion (Xp11.2/TFE RCC), and collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) are uncommon subtypes of renal cell carcinomas.

PURPOSE

To investigate the multislice CT (MSCT) characteristics of these two tumor types.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Nine patients with Xp11.2/TFE RCC and 10 patients with CDC were studied retrospectively. MSCT was undertaken to investigate differences in tumor characteristics and enhancement patterns.

RESULTS

All patients had single tumors centered in the renal medulla. Two patients with each tumor type had lymph node involvement and there was a single case of hepatic metastasis (Xp11.2/TFE RCC). The mean tumor diameter of Xp11.2/TFE RCC tumors was significantly larger than for CDC tumors. Two patients with Xp11.2/TFE RCC had cystic components as did eight patients with CDC (P < 0.05). Calcifications were present in six patients, each with CDC. Clear tumor boundaries were visible in two patients with CDC and in nine with Xp11.2/TFE RCC (P < 0.05). The density of Xp11.2/TFE RCC tumors was greater than that of CDC tumors, normal renal cortex, or medulla on unenhanced CT. Enhancement was higher with Xp11.2/TFE RCC than with CDC tumors during all phases. Xp11.2/TFE RCC enhancement was higher than in the renal medulla during cortical and medullary phase but lower than in normal renal medulla during the delayed phase. CDC tumor enhancement was lower than that for normal renal medulla during all enhanced phases.

CONCLUSION

Both tumor types originated from the renal medulla. Distinguishing features included density on unenhanced CT, enhancement patterns, and capsule signs. Identifying these differences may aid diagnosis.

The metabolic basis of kidney cancer

Kidney cancer is not a single disease; it is made up of a number of different types of cancer that occur in the kidney. Each of these different types of kidney cancer can have a different histology, have a different clinical course, can respond differently to therapy and is caused by a different gene. Kidney cancer is essentially a metabolic disease; each of the known genes for kidney cancer, VHL, MET, FLCN, TSC1, TSC2, TFE3, TFEB, MITF, fumarate hydratase (FH), succinate dehydrogenase B (SDHB), succinate dehydrogenase D (SDHD), and PTEN genes is involved in the cells ability to sense oxygen, iron, nutrients or energy. Understanding the metabolic basis of kidney cancer will hopefully provide the foundation for the development of effective forms of therapy for this disease.

Molecular confirmation of t(6;11)(p21;q12) renal cell carcinoma in archival paraffin-embedded material using a break-apart TFEB FISH assay expands its clinicopathologic spectrum

A subset of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) is characterized by t(6;11)(p21;q12), which results in fusion of the untranslated Alpha (MALAT1) gene to the TFEB gene. Only 21 genetically confirmed cases of t(6;11) RCCs have been reported. This neoplasm typically demonstrates a distinctive biphasic morphology, comprising larger epithelioid cells and smaller cells clustered around basement membrane material; however, the full spectrum of its morphologic appearances is not known. The t(6;11) RCCs differ from most conventional RCCs in that they consistently express melanocytic immunohistochemical (IHC) markers such as HMB45 and Melan A and the cysteine protease cathepsin K but are often negative for epithelial markers such as cytokeratins. TFEB IHC has been proven to be useful to confirm the diagnosis of t(6;11) RCCs in archival material, because native TFEB is upregulated through promoter substitution by the gene fusion. However, IHC is highly fixation dependent and has been proven to be particularly difficult for TFEB. A validated fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for molecular confirmation of the t(6;11) RCC in archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material has not been previously reported. We report herein the development of a break-apart TFEB FISH assay for the diagnosis of t(6;11)(p21;q12) RCCs. We validated the assay on 4 genetically confirmed cases and 76 relevant expected negative control cases and used the assay to report 8 new cases that expand the clinicopathologic spectrum of t(6;11) RCCs. An additional previously reported TFEB IHC-positive case was confirmed by TFEB FISH in 46-year-old archival material. In conclusion, TFEB FISH is a robust, clinically validated assay that can confirm the diagnosis of t(6;11) RCC in archival material and should allow a more comprehensive clinicopathologic delineation of this recently recognized neoplastic entity.

WITHDRAWN: Comparative study of CT appearances in renal carcinoma associated with Xp11.2 translocation/TFE gene fusion and papillary renal cell carcinoma

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.

Value of PAX2 immunostaining in tumor diagnosis: a review and update

PAX2 is a member of the PAX family of transcription factors that, together with PAX8, is involved in the regulation of the organogenesis of the kidney and the Müllerian system. Recent investigations have demonstrated that, among tumors, PAX2 is commonly expressed in epithelial tumors of the kidney and female genital tract. Although PAX2 expression has also been reported in B-cell lymphomas and rhabdomyosarcomas, especially alveolar rhabdomyosarcomas, it has been suggested that the positivity in these tumors was most probably due to a cross-reactivity of the anti-PAX2 antibody used in those investigations with other members of the PAX protein family. An analysis of published studies indicates that PAX2 sensitivity for epithelial renal neoplasms and epithelial tumors of the female genital tract is lower than that of PAX8. In contrast to the latter marker, however, PAX2 does not appear to be expressed in epithelial tumors of the thyroid gland or thymus. Because of its restricted expression, PAX2 has proved to be a useful immunohistochemical marker with a wide range of diagnostic applications in surgical pathology, some of which will be briefly reviewed.

Genetic basis of kidney cancer: role of genomics for the development of disease-based therapeutics

Kidney cancer is not a single disease; it is made up of a number of different types of cancer, including clear cell, type 1 papillary, type 2 papillary, chromophobe, TFE3, TFEB, and oncocytoma. Sporadic, nonfamilial kidney cancer includes clear cell kidney cancer (75%), type 1 papillary kidney cancer (10%), papillary type 2 kidney cancer (including collecting duct and medullary RCC) (5%), the microphalmia-associated transcription (MiT) family translocation kidney cancers (TFE3, TFEB, and MITF), chromophobe kidney cancer (5%), and oncocytoma (5%). Each has a distinct histology, a different clinical course, responds differently to therapy, and is caused by mutation in a different gene. Genomic studies identifying the genes for kidney cancer, including the VHL, MET, FLCN, fumarate hydratase, succinate dehydrogenase, TSC1, TSC2, and TFE3 genes, have significantly altered the ways in which patients with kidney cancer are managed. While seven FDA-approved agents that target the VHL pathway have been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced kidney cancer, further genomic studies, such as whole genome sequencing, gene expression patterns, and gene copy number, will be required to gain a complete understanding of the genetic basis of kidney cancer and of the kidney cancer gene pathways and, most importantly, to provide the foundation for the development of effective forms of therapy for patients with this disease.

Translocation renal cell carcinomas in adults: a single-institution experience

Translocation renal cell carcinoma is a newly recognized subtype of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with chromosomal translocations involving TFE3 (Xp11.2) or, less frequently, TFEB (6p21). Xp11 translocation RCC was originally described as a pediatric neoplasm representing 20% to 40% of pediatric RCCs, with a much lower frequency in the adult population. TFEB translocation RCC is very rare, with approximately 10 cases reported in the literature. Here, we describe the clinicopathologic features of adult translocation RCC from a single institution. Using tissue microarray, immunohistochemistry, cytogenetic examination, and fluorescence in situ hybridization, we identified 6 (∼5%) cases of TFE3 translocation RCC and 1 (<1%) case of TFEB translocation RCC in 121 consecutive adult RCC cases between 2001 and 2009. Our results suggest that weak TFE3 staining of a significant proportion of RCC cases may be because of expression of the full-length TFE3 protein rather than the chimeric fusion protein resulting from chromosomal translocation.

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: does the mammalian target of rapamycin represent a rational therapeutic target?

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (nccRCCs) comprise a heterogenous and poorly characterized group of tumor types for which few treatments have been approved. Although targeted therapies have become the cornerstones of systemic treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients with nccRCC have been excluded from many pivotal clinical trials. As such, robust clinical evidence supporting the use of these agents in patients with nccRCC is lacking. Here, we review the disparate nccRCC subtypes, the criteria for diagnosis, and the prognoses associated with each subtype, in addition to evaluating the potential use of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in treating patients with nccRCC. Both genetic analyses and preclinical research indicate a central role for mTOR in nccRCC; a therapy that targets this ubiquitous regulator of cellular signaling could prove efficacious across various tumor subtypes. Results from recent studies exploring targeted therapies as both monotherapy and combination therapy have provided early indications of efficacy in patients with nccRCC. Exploratory analyses support further research with the mTOR inhibitors everolimus and temsirolimus in patients with nccRCC. Current clinical practice guidelines support the use of mTOR inhibitors in patients with nccRCC; however, these recommendations are based on low levels of evidence. Further results from randomized, controlled clinical trials are needed to determine the optimal choice of therapy for patients with nccRCC. Results from ongoing clinical trials of mTOR inhibitors and other agents in nccRCC, as well as their impact on the nccRCC treatment paradigm, are eagerly awaited.

Renal cell carcinoma associated with transcription factor E3 expression and Xp11.2 translocation: incidence, characteristics, and prognosis

We studied the characteristics and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) associated with Xp11.2 translocation and transcription factor E3 (TFE3) expression and determined the need for genetic analysis in routine diagnostics. Of 848 consecutive cases, 75 showed microscopic features suggestive of Xp11.2 translocation RCC or occurred in patients 40 years or younger. Of these cases, 17 (23%) showed strong nuclear TFE3 immunostaining, which was associated with more advanced tumors and inverse prognosis in univariate (P = .032) but not multivariate (P = .404) analysis. With fluorescence in situ hybridization and polymerase chain reaction, only 2 cases showed alterations of the X chromosome and the ASPL-TFE3 gene fusion, respectively. In our laboratory, the predictive value of TFE3 expression for the Xp11.2 translocation was 12%. Strong nuclear TFE3 expression is associated with metastatic spread and a poor prognosis. In our laboratory, TFE3 is not diagnostic for Xp11.2 translocation RCC. Diagnosis of Xp11.2 translocation RCC may be made only genetically.

Renal cell carcinoma with clear cell and papillary features

CONTEXT

The diagnosis of primary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) with both papillary architecture and cells with clear cytoplasm can be diagnostically challenging for practicing pathologists. The 4 main neoplasms in the differential diagnosis are clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, clear cell papillary RCC, and Xp11 translocation RCC. Accurate diagnosis has both prognostic and therapeutic implications.

OBJECTIVE

To highlight the helpful cytomorphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic features of each of these entities to enable reproducible classification.

DATA SOURCES

Published peer-reviewed literature was reviewed, accompanied by the authors' personal experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Key morphologic clues and a focused immunohistochemical panel, including CK7, α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase (AMACR), TFE3, cathepsin K, and carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX), now allow most resected RCCs with papillary architecture and clear cells to be accurately classified. In other cases, cytogenetic and molecular findings can establish the diagnosis. Despite these tools, some RCCs with papillary architecture and clear cells do not fit into any of the described entities and currently remain unclassified.

Targeted therapeutic strategies for the management of renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews recent developments in the use of systemic targeted therapies for the treatment of advanced clear and nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The genetic/molecular basis of each form of RCC is discussed and current treatments and clinical trials are described.

RECENT FINDINGS

The treatment of advanced RCC continues to be a major challenge for uro-oncologists. The rapid growth in therapeutic options has brought much needed improvements in overall and progression-free survival, although durable complete responses remain elusive. The recent identification of mutations in genes involved in chromatin remodeling will likely lead to the investigation of whether components of this critical process can also be valid therapeutic targets in clear cell RCC. Similarly, efforts to decipher the molecular mechanisms underlying nonclear cell variants of RCC are beginning to engender novel therapeutic strategies directed against these rarer forms of kidney cancer. Despite the availability of multiple treatment options, several challenges remain: selecting the best first-line or subsequent therapy for a given patient, the optimal sequencing of the various agents available, designing trials with appropriate comparison arms and endpoints, and identifying well tolerated and effective drug combinations.

SUMMARY

Agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor and mammalian target of rapamycin pathways remain the mainstay in the management of metastatic RCC. Ongoing and future studies are expected to facilitate the development of therapeutic regimens that incorporate agents with improved tolerability and enhanced efficacy by continuing to capitalize on the strides made by basic and translational scientists in uncovering the mechanisms underlying the various forms of RCC.

Napsin A expression in lung and kidney neoplasia: a review and update

Napsin A is an aspartic protease present in the epithelial cells of the lung and kidney. Recent studies have shown that, in lung tumors, napsin A expression is restricted to lung adenocarcinomas, whereas among renal tumors, it is frequently expressed in renal cell carcinomas, especially the papillary and clear cell subtypes. Owing to its restricted expression, napsin A is a useful marker that can assist in the diagnosis of both lung adenocarcinomas and renal cell carcinomas.

Differential expression of cathepsin K in neoplasms harboring TFE3 gene fusions

Cathepsin K is a protease whose expression is driven by microphthalmia transcription factor (MITF) in osteoclasts. TFE3 and TFEB are members of the same transcription factor subfamily as MITF and all three have overlapping transcriptional targets. We have shown that all t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas, which harbor an Alpha-TFEB gene fusion, as well as a subset of the Xp11 translocation renal carcinomas, which harbor various TFE3 gene fusions, express cathepsin K, while no other common renal carcinoma does. We have hypothesized that overexpression of TFEB or certain TFE3 fusion proteins function like MITF in these neoplasms, and thus activate cathepsin K expression. However, the expression of cathepsin K in specific genetic subtypes of Xp11 translocation carcinomas, as well as alveolar soft part sarcoma, which harbors the same ASPSCR1-TFE3 gene fusion as some Xp11 translocation carcinomas, has not been addressed. We performed immunohistochemistry for cathepsin K on 14 genetically confirmed t(X;1)(p11;q21) carcinomas, harboring the PRCC-TFE3 gene fusion; eight genetically confirmed t(X;17)(p11;q25) carcinomas, harboring the ASPSCR1-TFE3 gene fusion; and 18 alveolar soft part sarcomas (12 genetically confirmed), harboring the identical ASPSCR1-TFE3 gene fusion. All 18 alveolar soft part sarcomas expressed cathepsin K. In contrast, all eight ASPSCR1-TFE3 carcinomas were completely negative for cathepsin K. However, 12 of 14 PRCC-TFE3 carcinomas expressed cathepsin K. Expression of cathepsin K distinguishes alveolar soft part sarcoma from the ASPSCR1-TFE3 carcinoma, harboring the same gene fusion. The latter can be useful diagnostically, especially when alveolar soft part sarcoma presents in an unusual site (such as bone) or with clear cell morphology, which raises the differential diagnosis of metastatic ASPSCR1-TFE3 renal cell carcinoma. The difference in expression of cathepsin K between the PRCC-TFE3 and ASPSCR1-TFE3 carcinomas, together with the observed clinical differences between these subtypes of Xp11 translocation carcinomas, suggests the possibility of functional differences between these two related fusion proteins.

Diagnostic use of PAX8, CAIX, TTF-1, and TGB in metastatic renal cell carcinoma of the thyroid

Clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) may present with metastatic lesions in patients with a concurrent undiagnosed primary or a remote history of ccRCC. The thyroid is not uncommonly involved by metastatic ccRCC, in which a metastasis could be misinterpreted as a clear-cell change in adenomatoid nodules, follicular adenomas, or parathyroid glands. PAX8 is a transcription factor expressed by thyroid and renal-lineage cells. No previous study has evaluated the diagnostic use of PAX8 and ccRCC marker carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) in this setting. Cases of metastatic ccRCC in the thyroid (n=12), parathyroid glands and adenomas with clear-cell change (n=6), papillary thyroid carcinoma (n=6), thyroid follicular adenomas (n=5), and adenomatoid nodules with clear-cell change (n=5) were studied. Cases were assessed by standard immunohistochemistry for thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1), thyroglobulin (TGB), PAX8, and CAIX. The extent and intensity of nuclear or cytoplasmic immunoexpression were assessed, with any labeling considered as a positive result. All metastatic ccRCCs were positive for PAX8 (moderate-to-strong, patchy-to-diffuse) and CAIX (strong, diffuse), and were negative for TTF-1 and TGB. All primary thyroid lesions labeled strongly and diffusely for TTF-1, TGB, and PAX8, and were negative for CAIX. Parathyroid tissues were negative for TTF-1, TGB, PAX8, and CAIX. An immunoprofile of "TTF1(-)/TGB(-)/CAIX(+)" was 100% sensitive and specific for metastatic ccRCC of the thyroid. The reverse profile "TTF1(+)/TGB(+)/CAIX(-)" supported a primary thyroid lesion. PAX8 was not useful in distinguishing metastatic ccRCC from thyroid lesions.

A distinctive subset of PEComas harbors TFE3 gene fusions

Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) include the common renal angiomyolipoma, pulmonary clear cell sugar tumor, lymphangioleiomyomatosis, and less common neoplasms of soft tissue, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal tracts. Recently, aberrant immunoreactivity for TFE3 protein (a sensitive and specific marker of neoplasms harboring TFE3 gene fusions) has been reported in as many as 100% of PEComas; however, TFE3 gene status in these neoplasms has not been systematically investigated. We used a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) break-apart assay to evaluate for evidence of TFE3 gene fusions in archival material from 29 PEComas. These cases included 2 earlier published TFE3 immunoreactive nonrenal PEComas, 14 additional nonrenal PEComas, and 13 renal angiomyolipomas with predominantly spindle or epithelioid morphology. Four nonrenal PEComas (mean patient age 24 y) showed TFE3 gene rearrangements by FISH, and all 4 of these showed strong positive (3+) TFE3 immunoreactivity using the original validated overnight incubation protocol. Two of these cases had adequate mRNA for RT-PCR analysis, but neither harbored the PSF-TFE3 gene fusion reported earlier in 1 PEComa. In addition, a lung metastasis of a uterine PEComa showed TFE3 gene amplification, an earlier unreported phenomenon. None of the other 24 PEComas (mean patient age 54 y) showed TFE3 gene alterations, though 4 exhibited moderate positive (2+) TFE3 immunoreactivity. In contrast, using an automated stainer, 2 of these 4 cases exhibited strong (3+) TFE3 immunoreactivity. All PEComas with TFE3 genetic alterations immunolabeled strongly for Cathepsin K, similar to other PEComas. In conclusion, a subset of lesions currently classified as PEComas harbors TFE3 gene fusions. Although numbers are small, distinctive features of these cases include a tendency to young age, the absence of association with tuberous sclerosis, predominant alveolar architecture and epithelioid cytology, minimal immunoreactivity for muscle markers, and strong (3+) TFE3 immunoreactivity. Despite significant morphologic and immunohistochemical overlap with other PEComas, PEComas harboring TFE3 gene fusions may represent a distinctive entity.