Cytopathologic features of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma: A recently described variant to be considered in the differential diagnosis of clear cell renal epithelial neoplasms

Diagnostic value of imaging in patients with clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma: A case series and literature review

Clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (CCPRCC) is a newly classified renal cell carcinoma with a low degree of malignancy. Its imaging features have not been studied deeply. Therefore, we reviewed the imaging features of CCPRCC. Solid CCPRCC shows high echo or isoecho mass on conventional ultrasound. Contrast enhanced ultrasound shows "fast forward and slow backward, uneven high enhancement". Computed tomography shows high enhancement and maximum enhancement in the cortical-medullary phase. Magnetic resonance imaging shows slightly low T1WI and high T2WI. This article aims to improve the understanding of CCPRCC by clinical radiologists and promote the accurate.

Characteristic morphology and immunohistochemical patterns of clear cell papillary renal cell tumours may be observed in renal cell carcinomas, a critical pitfall in renal biopsy cytopathology

BACKGROUND

Clear cell papillary renal cell tumour (CCPRCT) was renamed from previous clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (CCPRCC) in the latest WHO Classification of Tumours. It is essential to differentiate RCC from CCPRCT in renal mass biopsies (RMB).

DESIGN

RMB cases with subsequent resections were reviewed. The pathology reports and pertinent clinical information were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifteen cases displaying either CCPRCT morphology (20% diffuse, 67% focal) or immunohistochemical patterns (cup-like CA9: 20% diffuse, 47% focal; CK7: 33% diffuse, 40% focal) were identified. One case was positive for TFE3. TSC mutation was identified in one case. Both cases exhibited both CCPRCT morphology and immunohistochemical patterns for CA9 and CK7, with focal high-grade nuclei. RMB diagnoses were as follows: 6 (40%) as CCRCC, 2 (13%) as CCPRCT, 2 (13%) as CCRCC versus CCPRCT, 2 (13%) as CCRCC versus PRCC, 1 (7%) as RCC with TSC mutation versus CCPRCT, 1 (7%) as TFE3-rearranged RCC versus PRCC, and 1 (7%) as cyst with low-grade atypia. 71% of patients underwent nephrectomy, 21% received systemic treatment for stage 4 RCCs, and 7% with ablation for small renal mass (1.6 cm) with low-grade CCRCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights that morphologic and immunochemical features of CCPRCT may be present in RCCs, including RCC-TFE3 expression and TSC-associated RCC, a critical pitfall to misdiagnose aggressive RCC as indolent CCPRCT and result in undertreatment. Careful examination of morphology and immunostains for CA9, CK7, and TFE3, as well as molecular tests, is crucial for distinguishing aggressive RCC from indolent CCPRCT.

Clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma: an update after 15 years

Fifteen years since the first recognition of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma, this distinct renal tumour type is now well accepted as a distinct entity in major classification schemes. It occurs both with and without end-stage renal disease and may be multifocal or bilateral in both scenarios. Recognisable morphological features include clear cells lining branching glands and variable papillary formations with nuclear alignment. Most tumours are small (pT1a) and nucleolar grade 1-2. Immunohistochemistry consistently shows positivity for carbonic anhydrase IX and cytokeratin 7, and often high molecular weight cytokeratin or GATA3, the latter suggesting distal nephron phenotype. Labeling for AMACR and CD10 is consistently negative or minimal. Despite a resemblance to clear cell renal cell carcinoma, molecular alterations of VHL and chromosome 3p are typically lacking, with debatable rare exceptions. Potential mimics include clear cell renal cell carcinoma (with branching architecture or nuclear alignment), papillary renal cell carcinoma with clear cytoplasm, or rarely MITF family translocation renal cell carcinoma. Clinical behaviour is highly favourable with rare, debatable reports of aggressive behaviour. Combined with striking similarity to several extrarenal benign neoplasms, it would be reasonable to reclassify this entity as a benign or low malignant potential neoplasm. Using the nomenclature of the extrarenal counterparts, clear cell papillary (cyst)adenoma is proposed.

Cytomorphologic analysis of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma: Distinguishing diagnostic features

BACKGROUND

Clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (CCPRCC) shares histomorphologic and immunophenotypic features with clear cell RCC (CCRCC) and papillary RCC (PRCC).

METHODS

We compared the cytomorphology, immunoprofile, and clinical management of CCPRCC (n = 18), CCRCC (n = 20), and PRCC (n = 18).

RESULTS

Useful cytomorphologic features for comparing CCPRCC with CCRCC include 3-dimensional clusters (72% vs 0%), papillae (50% vs 0%) and sheets (22% vs 70%), vasculature (papillary vs traversing), naked nuclei (17% vs 100%), prominent nucleoli (0% vs 65%), and amount of cytoplasm (small vs large). Useful cytomorphologic features for comparing CCPRCC with PRCC include sheets (22% vs 61%), naked nuclei (17% vs 67%), nuclear grooves (5% vs 67%) and inclusions (17% vs 67%), and pigmented cytoplasm (17% vs 83%). At on-site evaluation, 16 of 18 (86%) CCPRCC specimens were deemed adequate, with suspicion for CCPRCC in 5 of 16 (31%) cases. Core histology of CCPRCC showed low-grade malignant cells in nests (67%), tubules (100%), and papillae (72%), frequently in myxohyaline stroma (67%). Immunostains demonstrated expression of cytokeratin 7 (CK7; 100%), carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX; 100%, cup-like), CD10 (53%, reverse cup-like), and α-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR; 35%). Among 18 CCPRCC patients, 9 (50%) underwent nephrectomy, 5 (28%) underwent cryo-ablation, and 4 (22%) were under surveillance with serial imaging.

CONCLUSION

Certain morphologic features represent diagnostic criteria of CCPRCC in cytology specimens and help distinguish CCPRCC from CCRCC and PRCC. Immunostaining patterns with CK7, CA IX, CD10, and AMACR can confirm the diagnosis. Delineating CCPRCC from more biologically aggressive RCC types in cytology specimens enhances presurgical and clinical management of patients given CCPRCC's low-grade, indolent behavior.

Can MRI be used to diagnose histologic grade in T1a (< 4 cm) clear cell renal cell carcinomas?

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether MRI can differentiate low-grade from high-grade T1a cc-RCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With IRB approval, 49 consecutive solid < 4 cm cc-RCC (low grade [Grade 1 or 2] N = 38, high grade [Grade 3] N = 11) with pre-operative MRI before nephrectomy were identified between 2013 and 2018. Tumor size, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis, enhancement wash-in and wash-out rates, and chemical shift signal intensity index (SI index) were assessed by a blinded radiologist. Subjectively, two blinded Radiologists also assessed for (1) microscopic fat, (2) homogeneity (5-point Likert scale), and (3) ADC signal (relative to renal cortex); discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Outcomes were studied using Chi square, multivariate analysis, logistic regression modeling, and ROC. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Tumor size was 24 ± 7 (13-39) mm with no association to grade (p = 0.45). Among quantitative features studied, corticomedullary phase wash-in index (p = 0.015), SI index (p = 0.137), and tenth-centile ADC (p = 0.049) were higher in low-grade tumors. 36.8% (14/38) low-grade tumors versus zero high-grade tumors demonstrated microscopic fat (p = 0.015; Kappa = 0.67). Microscopic fat was specific for low-grade disease (100.0% [71.5-100.0]) with low sensitivity (36.8% [21.8-54.6]). Other subjective features did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). A logistic regression model combining microscopic fat + wash-in index + tenth-centile-ADC yielded area under ROC curve 0.98 (Confidence Intervals 0.94-1.0) with sensitivity/specificity 87.5%/100%.

CONCLUSION

The combination of microscopic fat, higher corticomedullary phase wash-in and higher tenth-centile ADC is highly accurate for diagnosis of low-grade disease among T1a clear cell RCC.

New entities, new technologies, new findings: A review of the cytologic features of recently established subtypes of renal cell carcinoma

Several new renal tumor types with distinctive pathologic, epidemiologic, and genetic signatures have recently been adopted in the fourth edition of the World Health Organization classification. In succeeding years, the cytologic features of most of these new types have been described, adding to the trend of increasing diagnostic accuracy for most common renal cell carcinoma subtypes and the important diagnostic role of cytologic sampling in the management and personalization of therapy. The current article reviews the cytologic findings from these recently established renal cell carcinoma subtypes. Emphasis is placed on cytologic diagnostic clues, confirmatory ancillary testing, salient differential diagnoses, and challenges that can be encountered in an attempt to render accurate interpretations in small samples.

Challenge of FNA diagnosis of angiomyolipoma: A study of 33 cases

BACKGROUND

Angiomyolipoma (AML), typically composed of smooth muscle, vessels, and fat, is generally a benign tumor in the kidneys. However, it occasionally occurs in extrarenal sites and behaves like a malignant tumor. AML is uncommonly encountered in fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples and can cause diagnostic difficulty.

METHODS

We searched our pathology database for FNA cases diagnosed between 2003 and 2015 that were subsequently confirmed to be AML in the same lesion by surgical pathologic evaluation. The diagnostic performance, challenges, and cytologic features were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

In total, 33 FNA cases from 31 patients were identified. The final surgical pathologic diagnoses included 30 primary AMLs (28 in kidneys and 2 in liver) and 3 were metastases (in liver, lung, and abdominal wall, respectively). Aspiration sites included kidney/retroperitoneum (n = 28), abdominal wall (n = 1), lung (n = 1), and liver (n = 3). The FNA diagnoses were consistent with/favor AML (n = 16), descriptive (n = 12), nondiagnostic (n = 2), and erroneous (n = 3). Of the 3 erroneous cases, 2 were diagnosed as renal cell carcinoma, and 1 was diagnosed as a pleomorphic malignant neoplasm. Cytologically, cases with predominantly spindle cells were the most commonly encountered (n = 19). Cases with predominantly epithelioid cells (n = 6) can pose a diagnostic difficulty and were observed in all 3 metastatic AMLs and in 2 of the 3 erroneous cases. Immunostains were performed on 11 FNAs and helped the diagnosis in 9 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

FNA diagnosis of AML may be challenging, especially in cases with a predominantly epithelioid component and/or an extrarenal location. Immunostaining is important to improve diagnostic accuracy of this rare entity. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:257-266. © 2016 American Cancer Society.