Immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of renal epithelial neoplasms

Despite the increasing number of newly identified renal neoplasms, the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can usually be reached with careful histologic examination and a limited immunohistochemical (IHC) panel. Clear cell, papillary, chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma account for more than 90% of renal neoplasia in adults, and sophisticated ancillary tools are usually unnecessary. Renal tumors with entity-defining genetic alterations may ultimately require molecular confirmation via cytogenetics or sequencing technologies, such as RCC with TFE3, TFEB, or ALK gene rearrangements, or TFEB amplified RCC. In fumarate hydratase-deficient and succinate dehydrogenase-deficient RCC, highly specific IHC markers can strongly suggest the diagnosis. In the metastatic setting, PAX8 and carbonic anhydrase 9 are among the most helpful markers for confirming RCC and clear cell type, respectively; however, caution should be exercised in the absence of a current or historical renal mass. In diagnostically challenging cases, such as renal eosinophilic tumors with low-grade nuclear features, or infiltrative high-grade tumors, careful examination coupled with a judicious panel of IHC markers usually resolves the diagnosis. This review offers concise algorithms for diagnosis of kidney neoplasia with the latest recognized, provisional, and emerging entities to daily pathology practice.

Immunohistochemical analysis of BRCA1 and acetyl-histone H3 in squamous cell carcinoma of the mobile tongue

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the immunoexpression profiles of breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and acetyl-histone H3 (AcH3) in squamous cell carcinoma of the mobile tongue (SCC-MT) and their correlation with epidemiologic data and the histopathological grade of tumors.

STUDY DESIGN

Incisional biopsies of 43 SCC-MT were submitted to immunohistochemistry for AcH3 and BRCA1. Samples were microscopically graded as well differentiated (n = 21) or poorly differentiated (n = 22). Both groups were submitted to statistical analysis (P < .05) regarding the percentage of positive cells.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine cases were positive for AcH3 (91%), but no difference was observed for the histologic grading (P = .27). Positivity for BRCA1 was observed in all samples regardless of their cellular locations. Most cases in the poorly differentiated group presented with less than 10% nuclear staining (P < .01) and a predominance of cytoplasmic staining (P = .034). The well-differentiated group showed nuclear staining in most of the cases, with more than 50% of cells staining positive (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

AcH3 and BRCA1 were expressed in all samples. There was a significant decrease in cytoplasmic BRCA1 expression in the poorly differentiated group, suggesting BRCA1 as a possible prognostic marker for SCC-MT.

Cytomorphology, immunoprofile, and management of renal oncocytic neoplasms

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to evaluate the morphology, immunoprofile, and management of renal oncocytoma (RO), hybrid oncocytic tumor (HOT), and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC).

METHODS

Forty-seven cases of RO, 7 cases of HOT, and 25 cases of ChRCC were included in the study. Tissue microarrays were prepared for immunohistochemical evaluation.

RESULTS

Large sheets of cells with transverse vessels, and higher nuclear grade were seen more often in ChRCC than in RO or HOT. Tumor cells of RO were more uniform in size and shape relative to HOT and ChRCC. The cytoplasmic features of RO were more uniformly granular relative to HOT and ChRCC, which exhibited variable cytoplasmic features. CK7 and MUC1 were expressed more frequently and diffusely in ChRCC (54% and 94%, respectively) than RO (4% and 52%, respectively) and HOT (0% and 71%, respectively). AMACR and PAX8 were more frequently expressed diffusely in RO (67% and 42%, respectively) than in HOT (0% and 0%, respectively) or ChRCC (14% and 11%, respectively). Most HOT (57%) and CHRCC (60%) patients underwent nephrectomy. Cryoablation was the treatment of choice for 24% of patients with ChRCC, 2% of patients with RO, and 0% of patients with HOT. The majority of patients with RO (88%) opted for active surveillance-a much higher rate than that for patients with HOT (29%) or ChRCC (12%).

CONCLUSION

Some cytologic features and immunomarkers are useful in differentiating RO, HOT, and ChRCC. Because no immunomarker or morphologic finding is specific by itself, a combination of morphologic features with immunohistochemistry appears to be the most reliable way to distinguish ChRCC, HOT, and RO on biopsy samples. Subclassification of renal oncocytic tumors into specific categories impacts clinical management and downstream treatment selection.

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.

BRCA1 and γH2AX as independent prognostic markers in oral squamous cell carcinoma

Oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) are believed to originate from sequential mutations that can develop as a consequence of genetic instability acquired over time. BRCA1 are linked to DNA recombination and repair processes, being of importance for its role in regulation of RAD51 and H2AX (γH2AX). The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between BRCA1 expression status and evaluate its prognostic impact. We selected from 150 OSCC patients, and evaluated BRCA1 expression in OSCC by immunohistochemistry and qRT-PCR, comparing its expression with homologous recombination markers (RAD51, γH2AX and p53), clinicopathological and survival data. Expression of BRCA1 was observed in 61 cases (43.88%) and was related to tumor size (T stage) (p=0.001), and gender (p=0.017). mRNA from BRCA1 showed a borderline relationship with perineural invasion (p=0.053). BRCA1 [p=0.030; HR: 2.334 (C.I.: 1.087-5.012)], γH2AX [p=0.045; HR: 0.467 (C.I.: 0.222-0.628)] and gender [p=0.001; HR: 10.386 [(C.I.: 2.679-10.623)] were independent prognostic factors for DSS. BRCA1 and γH2AX expression by OSCC cells are associated with reduced overall survival time, independent of other variables in patients, as well as gender, and our findings shed some light about DSB markers in OSCC and its role as prognostic factors.

PAX2 and PAX8: useful markers for metastatic effusions

OBJECTIVE

It was the aim of this study to determine the utility of PAX2 and PAX8 in cytology effusions with metastatic tumor.

STUDY DESIGN

PAX2 and PAX8 immunohistochemical staining was performed on cell blocks of 89 pleural, pericardial and peritoneal effusions with benign diagnoses (18 cases), or secondary to renal cell carcinoma (RCC; 9 cases), müllerian carcinoma (21 cases) or non-müllerian carcinoma (41 cases).

RESULTS

PAX2 stained 0% (0/18) of controls, 100% (8/8) of RCCs, 35% (7/20) of müllerian carcinomas, and 2% (1/41) of non-müllerian carcinomas. PAX8 stained 6% (1/18) of control cases, 100% (9/9) of RCC cases, 100% (20/20) of müllerian carcinomas, and 5% (2/41) of non-müllerian carcinomas. PAX2 was 35% sensitive and 95% specific for müllerian carcinoma and 100% sensitive and 95% specific for RCC. PAX8 was 100% sensitive and 95% specific for müllerian carcinoma and 100% sensitive and 95% specific for RCC.

CONCLUSIONS

PAX8 is more sensitive than PAX2 for metastatic effusions from müllerian carcinomas (100 vs. 35%), while also having a higher intensity of staining than PAX2. However, PAX2 and PAX8 are both highly sensitive and specific for RCCs. PAX2 and PAX8 are valuable diagnostic markers for metastatic müllerian carcinomas and RCCs in effusion cytology. PAX8 is superior for carcinomas of müllerian origin.

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.

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.

PAX2 Expression in Ovarian Cancer

PAX2 is one of nine PAX genes that regulate tissue development and cellular differentiation in embryos. However, the functional role of PAX2 in ovarian cancer is not known. Twenty-six ovarian cancer cell lines with different histology origins were screened for PAX2 expression. Two ovarian cancer cell lines: RMUGL (mucinous) and TOV21G (clear cell), with high PAX2 expression were chosen for further study. Knockdown PAX2 expression in these cell lines was achieved by lentiviral shRNAs targeting the PAX2 gene. PAX2 stable knockdown cells were characterized for cell proliferation, migration, apoptosis, protein profiles, and gene expression profiles. The result indicated that these stable PAX2 knockdown cells had reduced cell proliferation and migration. Microarray analysis indicated that several genes involved in growth inhibition and motility, such as G0S2, GREM1, and WFDC1, were up-regulated in PAX2 knockdown cells. On the other hand, over-expressing PAX2 in PAX2-negative ovarian cell lines suppressed their cell proliferation. In summary, PAX2 could have both oncogenic and tumor suppression functions, which might depend on the genetic content of the ovarian cancer cells. Further investigation of PAX2 in tumor suppression and mortality is warranty.

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.

γ-H2AX and other histone post-translational modifications in the clinic

Chromatin is a dynamic complex of DNA and proteins that regulates the flow of information from genome to end product. The efficient recognition and faithful repair of DNA damage, particularly double-strand damage, is essential for genomic stability and cellular homeostasis. Imperfect repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) can lead to oncogenesis. The efficient repair of DSBs relies in part on the rapid formation of foci of phosphorylated histone H2AX (γ-H2AX) at each break site, and the subsequent recruitment of repair factors. These foci can be visualized with appropriate antibodies, enabling low levels of DSB damage to be measured in samples obtained from patients. Such measurements are proving useful to optimize treatments involving ionizing radiation, to assay in vivo the efficiency of various drugs to induce DNA damage, and to help diagnose patients with a variety of syndromes involving elevated levels of γ-H2AX. We will survey the state of the art of utilizing γ-H2AX in clinical settings. We will also discuss possibilities with other histone post-translational modifications. The ability to measure in vivo the responses of individual patients to particular drugs and/or radiation may help optimize treatments and improve patient care. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Chromatin in time and space.

Value of PAX 8 immunostaining in tumor diagnosis: a review and update

PAX 8 is a transcription factor involved in the regulation of organogenesis of the thyroid gland, kidney, and Müllerian system. Recent studies have shown that, among tumors, PAX 8 is commonly expressed in epithelial tumors of the thyroid and parathyroid glands, kidney, thymus, and female genital tract. Although PAX 8 expression has also been reported in certain neuroendocrine tumors, including well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and duodenal and rectal carcinoids, as well as in B-cell lymphomas, it has recently been shown that the PAX 8 positivity reported in these tumors was due to a cross-reactivity of the antibody used with the N-terminal region of PAX 6 and PAX 5, respectively. Owing to its restricted expression, PAX 8 has proved to be a useful immunohistochemical marker with a wide range of diagnostic applications in surgical pathology, some of which are briefly reviewed.

Utility of PAX8 and PAX2 immunohistochemistry in the identification of renal cell carcinoma in diagnostic cytology

The diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in cytology specimens may be difficult to confirm on the basis of cytomorphology alone. Often, immunohistochemistry serves as an important adjunct in confirming this diagnosis. Recently, PAX2 was shown to be useful in this regard. In this study, we sought to compare the utility of PAX8 to that of PAX2 immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of RCC in cytology specimens. First, we verified the performance of PAX8 immunohistochemistry on a tissue microarray (TMA) composed of 54 cases of RCC; PAX8 immunoreactivity was seen in at least 10% of the tumor cells in all cases. Next, we applied PAX8 immunohistochemistry to cell block sections prepared from 24 cases of RCC, obtained from fine-needle aspirates and effusion specimens. PAX2 immunohistochemistry was performed for comparison. Immunopositivity was defined as the presence of nuclear staining in at least 10% of tumor cell nuclei. Immunoreactivity for PAX8 and PAX2 was seen in 21 (88%) and 20 (83%) of the 24 cases, respectively. The presence of either PAX8 or PAX2 immunostaining was present in 22 of 24 cases, thus showing a total sensitivity of 92%. Overall, the results indicate that PAX8 and PAX2 are diagnostically useful adjuncts in confirming the diagnosis of RCC in cytology specimens.

The use of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a review of PAX-8, PAX-2, hKIM-1, RCCma, and CD10

The diagnosis of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma may be difficult in some cases, particularly in the small image-guided biopsies that are becoming more common. As targeted therapies for renal cell carcinoma are now standard treatment, the recognition and diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma has become even more critical. Many adjunctive immunohistochemical markers of renal epithelial lineage such as CD10 and RCCma have been proposed as aids in the diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, but low specificities often limit their utility. More recently described markers (PAX-2, PAX-8, human kidney injury molecule-1, hepatocyte nuclear factor-1-β, and carbonic anhydrase-IX) offer the potential for greater sensitivity and specificity in this diagnostic setting; however, knowledge of their expected staining in other neoplasms and tissues is critical for appropriate use. In this review, we discuss the most widely used immunohistochemical markers of renal lineage with an emphasis on their sensitivity and specificity for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Subsequently, we present a variety of organ-specific differential diagnostic scenarios in which metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma might be considered and we propose immunopanels for use in each situation.

PAX-2 is a helpful marker for diagnosing metastatic renal cell carcinoma: comparison with the renal cell carcinoma marker antigen and kidney-specific cadherin

CONTEXT

The diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains problematic.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of PAX-2, a renal tubular cell transcription factor, in the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. PAX-2 expression in metastatic RCC was compared with that of the renal cell carcinoma marker antigen (RCCM) and kidney-specific cadherin (KSC), which are 2 known markers for RCC.

DESIGN

Immunostaining for PAX-2, RCCM, and KSC was performed on consecutive tissue sections of 95 metastatic RCCs (77 clear cell, 8 papillary, 5 sarcomatoid, and 5 collecting duct) and 183 metastatic tumors other than RCC.

RESULTS

For PAX-2, positive immunoreactivity was detected in 77% clear cell, 75% papillary, 100% collecting duct, and 0% sarcomatoid metastatic RCCs. For RCCM, positive immunoreactivity was detected in 49% clear cell, 75% papillary, 0% collecting duct, and 0% sarcomatoid metastatic RCCs. For KSC, only 2 metastatic clear cell RCCs (3%) were positive. In combination, all markers were positive in 0% of cases; all markers were negative in 23% of cases (17 clear cell, 1 papillary, and for all 5 sarcomatoid); and at least 1 marker was positive in 76% of cases (PAX-2 only in 28% of cases [21 clear cell, 1 papillary, and 5 collecting duct] and RCCM only in 3% of cases [2 clear, 1 papillary]). Of 183 metastatic tumors other than RCC, 14 were positive for PAX-2 (nodal metastasis of carcinoma of colon [1], breast [1], endometrium [1], and ovary [1]; and omental metastasis of carcinoma of uterus or ovary [10]).

CONCLUSIONS

PAX-2 is a sensitive and specific marker for metastatic RCC. The diagnostic yield would be marginally increased by adding RCCM, but not KSC, as an immunomarker.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of clear-cell pancreatic endocrine neoplasm in a patient with von Hippel-Lindau disease: a case report

The cytologic findings of a clear-cell pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PEN) diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) occurring in a 29-year-old man with von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) syndrome are described. Imaging studies showed multiple pancreatic masses and cysts, a single liver lesion, and pulmonary and renal cysts. Cytologic features of this clear-cell PEN included the presence of large sheets and rounded clusters of polygonal neoplastic cells with relatively abundant cytoplasm containing numerous, small, sharply-demarcated vacuoles that occasionally indented nuclei and gave the cells a "frothy" appearance. Mild anisonucleosis was present and nucleoli were visible. Rare single cells and stripped nuclei were seen. Small vessels transgressed tumor cell sheets. These cytologic findings are distinct from those of typical endocrine neoplasms, and bear resemblance to the cytologic features of renal cell carcinoma metastatic to the pancreas. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first detailed report of the EUS-FNA cytologic findings of a clear-cell PEN associated with VHL syndrome. We believe that the distinctive and characteristic cytologic features, together with immunohistochemical studies, can allow a preoperative cytologic diagnosis of this highly unusual pancreatic lesion and avoid possible confusion with other clear-cell neoplasms in the pancreas, particularly metastatic renal cell carcinoma.