Urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis with simultaneous trophoblastic and malignant clear cell endodermal-type differentiation

Case report: Urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis with trophoblastic differentiation: A rare case report and review of literature

We report a rare case of urothelial carcinoma (UC) of the renal pelvis with trophoblastic differentiation that occurred in a 55-year-old male patient. The patient presented with gross hematuria and paroxysmal lumbago pain 5 months ago. The enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrated a large space occupying lesion in the left kidney and multiple retroperitoneal lymph node enlargements. Histologically, high-grade infiltrating urothelial carcinoma (HGUC) contained giant cells which were positive for beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG). Three weeks after resection, positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT) scan showed multiple nodules of metastasis in the left renal region, extensive systemic muscle, bone, lymph node, liver and bilateral lung metastases. The patient underwent bladder perfusion chemotherapy and gemcitabine combined with cisplatin chemotherapy regimens. This is the eighth documented case of UC of the renal pelvis with trophoblastic differentiation. Due to its rarity and extremely poor prognosis, it is important to clarify the characteristics of the disease and make an accurate and prompt diagnosis.

Human germ cell tumours from a developmental perspective

Human germ cell tumours (GCTs) are derived from stem cells of the early embryo and the germ line. They occur in the gonads (ovaries and testes) and also in extragonadal sites, where migrating primordial germ cells are located during embryogenesis. This group of heterogeneous neoplasms is unique in that their developmental potential is in effect determined by the latent potency state of their cells of origin, which are reprogrammed to omnipotent, totipotent or pluripotent stem cells. Seven GCT types, defined according to their developmental potential, have been identified, each with distinct epidemiological and (epi)genomic features. Heritable predisposition factors affecting the cells of origin and their niches likely explain bilateral, multiple and familial occurrences of the different types of GCTs. Unlike most other tumour types, GCTs are rarely caused by somatic driver mutations, but arise through failure to control the latent developmental potential of their cells of origin, resulting in their reprogramming. Consistent with their non-mutational origin, even the malignant tumours of the group are characterized by wild-type TP53 and high sensitivity for DNA damage. However, tumour progression and the rare occurrence of treatment resistance are driven by embryonic epigenetic state, specific (sub)chromosomal imbalances and somatic mutations. Thus, recent progress in understanding GCT biology supports a comprehensive developmental pathogenetic model for the origin of all GCTs, and provides new biomarkers, as well as potential targets for treatment of resistant disease.

Germ cell tumour growth patterns originating from clear cell carcinomas of the ovary and endometrium: a comparative immunohistochemical study favouring their origin from somatic stem cells

AIMS

To report a series of 11 ovarian and one endometrial neoplasm in elderly patients with mixed clear cell tumour and germ cell tumour (GCT) components, to compare their immunohistochemical profiles and demonstrate a putative stem cell population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The clear cell tumours included 11 clear cell carcinomas (CCC) and one borderline clear cell tumour, while the GCT always included glandular yolk sac tumour (YST). In four cases, there were also foci of teratoma with immature neuroepithelial and endodermal tissues and undifferentiated areas showing true embryoids. To distinguish between the clear cell and YST components, the following antibodies were used: HNF1-β, napsin-A, cytokeratin 7 (CK7), PAX8, EMA, AFP, SALL4, villin, glypican-3 (GPC-3), GATA3, HepPar-1, OCT4, CDX2, CD30 and SOX2. HNF1-β, CK7, EMA and GPC-3 were often expressed in both components. Other markers had higher specificity for each cellular lineage; napsin-A and PAX8 were expressed only in CCC, while SALL4, villin, AFP and HepPar-1 were positive in the glandular YST component but negative in the clear cell component. OCT4 expression occurred in six of 10 cases and consistently in teratoma (four of four).

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable immunophenotypical overlap between the two components in these mixed neoplasms, and a panel of markers should be used to facilitate the distinction. We propose that OCT4-expressing somatic cancer cells differentiate into GCT and represent spontaneously induced pluripotent stem cells, possibly conditioned by age-related epigenetic factors. These neoplasms have features of prepubertal type GCT showing lack of 12p gain, preponderance of YST and coexistence with immature neuroectoderm. However, there may also be undifferentiated stem cell areas with embryoid bodies, of the type seen in postpubertal testicular GCT, but lacking a complete embryonal carcinoma immunophenotype.

A diagnostic immunohistochemical panel for yolk sac (primitive endodermal) tumours based on an immunohistochemical comparison with the human yolk sac

AIMS

To establish a diagnostic immunohistochemical panel for various histotypes of yolk sac (primitive endodermal) tumours (YSTs) by comparison with the human yolk sac (HYS) immunophenotype.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-five YSTs showing either classical patterns (CPs) of histology (microcystic/reticular, n = 14; polyvesicular, n = 1; and hepatoid, n = 1) or somatic glandular patterns (SGPs; n = 9) were analysed for expression of α-fetoprotein (AFP), glypican-3 (GPC3), villin, hepatocyte paraffin-1 (HepPar-1), CDX2, SALL4 and LIN28. AFP expression was constantly heterogeneous in CPs but tended to be focal/absent in SGPs. GPC3 was diffuse in CPs but heterogeneous (seven cases) or focal/absent (two cases) in SGPs. HepPar-1 expression was focal in all but three cases (diffuse in one CP-hepatoid and two SGPs). CDX2 positivity was focal in CPs but heterogeneous (seven cases) or diffuse (two cases) in SGPs. Villin, SALL4 and LIN28 were diffusely positive in nearly all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

CPs reproduce the immunophenotype of HYS and early endoderm with variable expression of both AFP and markers of early gut or hepatic differentiation. SGPs with intestinal differentiation often have incomplete immunophenotypes. A differential diagnosis panel, including both markers of pluripotentiality (SALL4 and/or LIN28) and endoderm (AFP, GPC3 and villin), is proposed. It identifies overlapping multidifferentiation of primitive and somatic immunophenotypes, supporting the recently proposed term of primitive endodermal tumours.