Molecular-genetic analysis is essential for accurate classification of renal carcinoma resembling Xp11.2 translocation carcinoma

Pan-keratin Immunostaining in Human Tumors: A Tissue Microarray Study of 15,940 Tumors

To evaluate the efficiency of pan-keratin immunostaining, tissue microarrays of 13,501 tumor samples from 121 different tumor types and subtypes as well as 608 samples of 76 different normal tissue types were analyzed by immunohistochemistry. In normal tissues, strong pan-keratin immunostaining was seen in epithelial cells. Staining intensity was lower in hepatocytes, islets of Langerhans, and pneumocytes but markedly reduced in the adrenal cortex. Pan-keratin was positive in ≥98% of samples in 62 (83%) of 75 epithelial tumor entities, including almost all adenocarcinomas, squamous cell and urothelial carcinomas. Only 17 of 121 tumor entities (13%) had a pan-keratin positivity rate between 25% and 98%, including tumors with mixed differentiation, endocrine/neuroendocrine tumors, renal cell carcinomas, adrenocortical tumors, and particularly poorly differentiated carcinoma subtypes. The 15 entities with pan-keratin positivity in 0.9%-25% were mostly of mesenchymal origin. Reduced/absent pan-keratin immunostaining was associated with high UICC stage (p = 0.0001), high Thoenes grade (p = 0.0183), high Fuhrman grade (p = 0.0049), advanced tumor stage (p < 0.0001) and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.0114) in clear cell renal cell carcinoma, advanced pT stage (p = 0.0007) in papillary renal cell carcinoma, and with advanced stage (p = 0.0023), high grade (p = 0.0005) as well as loss of ER and PR expression (each p < 0.0001) in invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (NST). In summary, pan-keratin can consistently be detected in the vast majority of epithelial tumors, although pan-keratin can be negative a fraction of renal cell, adrenocortical and neuroendocrine neoplasms. The data also link reduced pan-keratin immunostaining to unfavorable tumor phenotype in in epithelial neoplasms.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma with focal psammomatous calcifications: a rare occurrence mimicking translocation carcinoma

AIMS

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with clear cells and psammoma-like calcifications would often raise suspicion for MITF family translocation RCC. However, we have rarely encountered tumours consistent with clear cell RCC that contain focal psammomatous calcifications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified clear cell RCCs with psammomatous calcifications from multiple institutions and performed immunohistochemistry and fluorescence and RNA in-situ hybridisation (FISH and RNA ISH). Twenty-one tumours were identified: 12 men, nine women, aged 45-83 years. Tumour size was 2.3-14.0 cm (median = 6.75 cm). Nucleolar grade was 3 (n = 14), 2 (n = 4) or 4 (n = 3). In addition to clear cell pattern, morphology included eosinophilic (n = 12), syncytial giant cell (n = 4), rhabdoid (n = 2), branched glandular (n = 1), early spindle cell (n = 1) and poorly differentiated components (n = 1). Labelling for CA9 was usually 80-100% of the tumour cells (n = 17 of 21), but was sometimes decreased in areas of eosinophilic cells (n = 4). All (19 of 19) were positive for CD10. Most (19 of 20) were positive for AMACR (variable staining = 20-100%). Staining was negative for keratin 7, although four showed rare positive cells (four of 20). Results were negative for cathepsin K (none of 19), melan A (none of 17), HMB45 (none of 17), TFE3 (none of 5), TRIM63 RNA ISH (none of 13), and TFE3 (none of 19) and TFEB rearrangements (none of 12). Seven of 19 (37%) showed chromosome 3p deletion. One (one of 19) showed trisomy 7 and 17 without papillary features.

CONCLUSIONS

Psammomatous calcifications in RCC with a clear cell pattern suggests a diagnosis of MITF family translocation RCC; however, psammomatous calcifications can rarely be found in true clear cell RCC.

Integrative clinical and molecular characterization of translocation renal cell carcinoma

Translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a poorly characterized subtype of kidney cancer driven by MiT/TFE gene fusions. Here, we define the landmarks of tRCC through an integrative analysis of 152 patients with tRCC identified across genomic, clinical trial, and retrospective cohorts. Most tRCCs harbor few somatic alterations apart from MiT/TFE fusions and homozygous deletions at chromosome 9p21.3 (19.2% of cases). Transcriptionally, tRCCs display a heightened NRF2-driven antioxidant response that is associated with resistance to targeted therapies. Consistently, we find that outcomes for patients with tRCC treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) are worse than those treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Using multiparametric immunofluorescence, we find that the tumors are infiltrated with CD8+ T cells, though the T cells harbor an exhaustion immunophenotype distinct from that of clear cell RCC. Our findings comprehensively define the clinical and molecular features of tRCC and may inspire new therapeutic hypotheses.

TFE3 and TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas: an immunohistochemical panel to differentiate from common renal cell neoplasms

TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas are characterized by translocations involving TFE3 and TFEB genes. Despite the initial description of typical morphology, their histological spectrum is wide, mimicking common subtypes of renal cell tumors. Thus, the diagnosis is challenging requiring the demonstration of the gene rearrangement, usually by FISH. However, this technique is limited in most laboratories and immunohistochemical TFE3/TFEB analysis is inconsistent. We sought to identify a useful immunohistochemical panel using the most common available markers to recognize those tumors. We performed an immunohistochemical panel comparing 27 TFE3-rearranged and 10 TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas to the most common renal cell tumors (150 clear cell, 100 papillary, 50 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas, 18 clear cell papillary renal cell tumors, and 50 oncocytomas). When dealing with neoplasms characterized by cells with clear cytoplasm, CA9 is a helpful marker to exclude clear cell renal cell carcinoma. GATA3, AMACR, and CK7 are useful to rule out clear cell papillary renal cell tumor. CK7 is negative in TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma and positive in papillary renal cell carcinoma, being therefore useful in this setting. Parvalbumin and CK7/S100A1 respectively are of paramount importance when TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma resembles oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Moreover, in TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma, cathepsin K and melanogenesis markers are constantly positive, whereas TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma stains for cathepsin K in roughly half of the cases, HMB45 in 8% and Melan-A in 22%. In conclusion, since TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma may mimic several histotypes, an immunohistochemical panel to differentiate them from common renal cell tumors should include cathepsin K, CA9, CK7, and parvalbumin.

Common Diagnostic Challenges and Pitfalls in Genitourinary Organs, With Emphasis on Immunohistochemical and Molecular Updates

CONTEXT.—

Lesions in the genitourinary (GU) organs, both benign and malignant, can demonstrate overlapping morphology, and practicing surgical pathologists should be aware of these potential pitfalls and consider a broad differential diagnosis for each specific type of lesion involving the GU organs. The following summary of the contents presented at the 6th Annual Chinese American Pathologists Association (CAPA) Diagnostic Course (October 10-11, 2020), supplemented with relevant literature review, exemplifies the common diagnostic challenges and pitfalls for mass lesions of the GU system of adults, including adrenal gland, with emphasis on immunohistochemical and molecular updates when relevant.

OBJECTIVE.—

To describe the common mass lesions in the GU system of adults, including adrenal gland, with emphasis on the diagnostic challenges and pitfalls that may arise in the pathologic assessment, and to highlight immunohistochemical workups and emerging molecular findings when relevant.

DATA SOURCES.—

The contents presented at the course and literature search comprise our data sources.

CONCLUSIONS.—

The diagnostic challenges and pitfalls that arise in the pathologic assessment of the mass lesions in the GU system of adults, including adrenal gland, are common. We summarize the contents presented at the course, supplemented with relevant literature review, and hope to provide a diagnostic framework to evaluate these lesions in routine clinical practice.

RBM10-TFE3 fusions: A FISH-concealed anomaly in adult renal cell carcinomas displaying a variety of morphological and genomic features: Comprehensive study of six novel cases

The accurate diagnosis of Xp11-translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in adults is challenging. TFE3 (located on chromosome X) fuses with a partner gene generally located on another chromosome. In rare cases TFE3 may fuse with a neighboring gene: RBM10. Because TFE3 false-positive immunostaining is a common pitfall in many laboratories, demonstration of the chromosomal rearrangement is required in order to ascertain the diagnosis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-that has been considered as the gold standard method-reaches its limits for detecting small Xp11 paracentric inversions. We performed a comprehensive clinical, histological and genomic study of six novel cases of RCC with RBM10-TFE3 fusion. Using FISH, TFE3 rearrangement was equivocal in one case and negative in others. RBM10-TFE3 fusion was discovered using targeted RNA sequencing (RNASeq). As all the previously reported cases (mean age: 50), the six patients were adults (mean age: 42), suggesting an epidemiologic difference between RBM10-TFE3 RCC and tumors harboring some other partner genes, such as ASPSCR1 that rather occur in children. Array-comparative genomic hybridization showed several alterations, notably a gain of 17q in four cases with papillary features and loss of 3p in one case with clear cells. Our study demonstrates that, though rare among adult cases of RCC, RBM10-TFE3 fusion is not exceptional and warrants appropriate molecular detection. Notably, it would be worthy to systemically investigate by RNASeq challenging RCC with type-2 papillary features and 17q gain.

Key Renal Neoplasms With a Female Predominance

Renal neoplasms largely favor male patients; however, there is a growing list of tumors that are more frequently diagnosed in females. These tumors include metanephric adenoma, mixed epithelial and stromal tumor, juxtaglomerular cell tumor, mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma, Xp11.2 (TFE3) translocation-associated renal cell carcinoma, and tuberous sclerosis complex (somatic or germline) associated renal neoplasms. The latter category is a heterogenous group with entities still being delineated. Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma is the best-described entity, whereas, eosinophilic vacuolated tumor is a proposed entity, and the remaining tumors are currently grouped together under the umbrella of tuberous sclerosis complex/mammalian target of rapamycin-related renal neoplasms. The entities described in this review are often diagnostic considerations when evaluating renal mass tissue on biopsy or resection. For example, Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma is in the differential when a tumor has clear cell cytology and papillary architecture and occurs in a young or middle-aged patient. In contrast, tuberous sclerosis complex-related neoplasms often enter the differential for tumors with eosinophilic cytology. This review provides an overview of the clinical, gross, microscopic, immunohistochemical, genetic, and molecular alterations in key renal neoplasms occurring more commonly in females; differential diagnoses are also discussed regardless of sex predilection.

Non-clear cell renal carcinomas: Review of new molecular insights and recent clinical data

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (nccRCC) represent a highly heterogeneous group of kidney tumors, consisting of the following subtypes: papillary carcinomas, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, so-called unclassified carcinomas or aggressive uncommon carcinomas such as Bellini carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with ALK rearrangement or fumarate hydratase-deficient RCC. Although non-clear cell cancers account for only 15 to 30% of renal tumors, they are often misclassified and accurate diagnosis continues to be an issue in clinical practice. Current therapeutic strategy of metastatic nccRCC is based primarily on guidelines established for clear cell tumors, the most common subtype, however this approach remains poorly defined. To date, published clinical trials for all histological nccRCC subtypes have been collectively characterized into one group, in contrast to clear cell RCC, and given the small numbers of cases, the interpretation of study results continues to be challenging. This review summarizes the available literature for each nccRCC subtype and highlights the lack of supportive evidence from prospective clinical trials and retrospective studies. Future trials should evaluate treatment approaches which focus on a specific histological subtype and progress in treating nccRCC will be contingent on understanding the unique biology of their individual histologies.

TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinoma. A clinicopathologic and molecular study of 13 cases. Tumors harboring MALAT1-TFEB, ACTB-TFEB, and the novel NEAT1-TFEB translocations constantly express PDL1

Renal cell carcinomas with t(6;11) chromosome translocation has been classically characterized by the rearrangement of the TFEB gene, located on chromosome 6, and MALAT1 gene, located on chromosome 11. Recently, a few other genes have been described as fusion partners in TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinomas. Although most of TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinomas have an indolent behavior, in the rare cases of advanced metastatic disease targeted therapy and predictive markers remain lacking. In the present study, we collected 13 TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinomas, confirmed by FISH, analyzing their morphology and exploring the novel gene partners. Looking for predictive markers, we have also performed PDL1 immunohistochemical analysis by using four different assays (E1L3N, 22C3, SP142, and SP263). MALAT1 gene rearrangement has been found in ten tumors, five cases showing classical biphasic morphology with "rosettes", five cases without "rosettes" mimicking other renal cell carcinomas or epithelioid angiomyolipoma/pure epithelioid PEComa. We identified two different partner genes, ACTB and NEAT1, the latter previously unreported and occurring in a tumor with an unusual solid and cystic appearance. In both cases, the "rosettes" were absent. In one case no gene partner was identified. Overall, in 12 of 13 TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas staining for PDL1 SP263 was observed, whereas the other antibodies were less reliable or more difficult to interpret. In conclusion, we described the third case of ACTB-TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinoma and a novel NEAT1-TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinoma, both without the distinctive biphasic morphology typical of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma. Finally, PDL1 SP263 was constantly expressed in TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinoma with possible clinical benefit which requires further investigations.

Factors Associated with Survival From Xp11.2 Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma Diagnosis-A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Purpose: Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma (Xp11.2 tRCC) is a rare subtype of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), characterized by translocations of Xp11.2 breakpoints, involving of the transcription factor three gene (TFE3). The aim of our study was to comprehensively characterize the clinical characteristics and outcomes, and to identify risk factors associated with OS and PFS in Xp11.2 tRCC patients.

Methods: Literature search on Xp11.2 tRCC was performed using databases such as pubmed EMBASE and Web of Science. Studies were eligible if outcomes data (OS and/or PFS) were reported for patients with a histopathologically confirmed Xp11.2 tRCC. PFS and OS were evaluated using the univariable and multivariable Cox regression model.

Results: There were 80 eligible publications, contributing 415 patients. In multivariable analyses, the T stage at presentation was significantly associated with PFS (HR: 3.87; 95% CI: 1.70 to 8.84; p = 0.001). The median time of PFS was 72 months. In the multivariable analyses, age at diagnosis (HR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.50; p = 0.041), T stage at presentation (HR: 4.44; 95% CI: 2.16 to 9.09; p < 0.001) and metastasis status at presentation (HR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.12 to 6.41; p = 0.027) were all associated with OS, with a median follow-up time of 198 months.

Conclusion: T stage at presentation is the only factor that is associated with both PFS and OS in patients with Xp11.2 tRCC. Also, patients over 45 or with metastases are more likely to have poorer OS.

Comprehensive analysis of 34 MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas and review of the literature: investigating prognostic markers and therapy targets

Recently cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against VEGF, MET, AXL, and downregulating cathepsin K in vitro, has been proposed for the treatment of advanced clear and non-clear renal cell carcinomas. Since it is well known that cathepsin K is expressed in the majority of MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas, we investigated cathepsin K, MET, AXL, and VEGF in a large series of those tumours, looking for possible predictive markers. We collected the clinicopathological features of 34 genetically confirmed MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas [26 Xp11 and 8 t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas] and studied them using an immunohistochemical panel including PAX8, cathepsin K, HMB45, Melan-A, CD68 (PG-M1), CK7, CA9, MET, AXL and by FISH for VEGFA and MET. Cathepsin K was expressed in 14 of 26, HMB45 in 8 of 25, and Melan-A in 4 of 23 Xp11 renal cell carcinomas, whereas labelling for CK7 and CA9 was minimal. In t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma, cathepsin K and melanogenesis markers were constantly positive, whereas CK7 and CA9 were negative. None of the 34 carcinomas showed CD68 (PG-M1) and AXL expression. One aggressive Xp11 renal cell carcinoma showed increased VEGFA gene copy number (4-5 copies) with concurrent gains of TFE3 and TFEB. None of the 34 carcinomas showed MET gene amplification, whereas staining for MET was found in 7 of 8 t(6;11) and in 16 of 24 Xp11 renal cell carcinomas, and in the latter cases, when the expression was >50%, correlated with aggressiveness (p=0.0049). In Xp11 renal cell carcinomas, the aggressiveness was also correlated with larger tumour size (p=0.0008) and the presence of necrosis (p=0.027) but not nucleolar grading (p=1). Interestingly, in patients with tumours exhibiting two of three parameters (necrosis, larger tumour size and MET immunolabelling >50%) an aggressive clinical behaviour was observed in 88% of cases. In conclusion, cathepsin K, CD68 (PG-M1), CK7, CA9, and PAX8 is a useful panel for the diagnosis. Larger tumour size, the presence of necrosis and MET immunohistochemical expression correlate with aggressive behaviour in Xp11 renal cell carcinomas, especially in combination. VEGF, MET, cathepsin K but not AXL may be potential predictive markers for targeted therapy in MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas.

Gene fusion analysis in renal cell carcinoma by FusionPlex RNA-sequencing and correlations of molecular findings with clinicopathological features

Translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) affects younger patients and often presents as advanced disease. Accurate diagnosis is required to guide clinical management. Here we evaluate the RNA-sequencing FusionPlex platform with a 115-gene panel including TFE3 and TFEB for tRCC diagnosis and correlate molecular findings with clinicopathological features. We reviewed 996 consecutive RCC cases from our institution over the preceding 7 years and retrieved 17 cases with histological and immunohistochemical features highly suggestive of either TFE3 (n = 16) or TFEB (n = 1). Moderate to strong labeling for TFE3 was present in 15 cases; two cases with weak TFE3 expression were melan-A or cathepsin-K positive. RNA-sequencing detected gene rearrangements in eight cases: PRCC-TFE3 (3), ASPSCR1-TFE3 (2), LUC7L3-TFE3 (1), SFPQ-TFE3 (1), and a novel SETD1B-TFE3 (1). FISH assays of 11 tumors verified six positive cases concordant with FusionPlex analysis results. Two other cases were confirmed by RT-PCR. FusionPlex was superior to FISH by providing precise breakpoints for tRCC-related genes in a single assay and allowing identification of both known and novel fusion partners, thereby facilitating clinicopathological correlations as fusion partners can influence tumor appearance, immunophenotype, and behavior. Cases with partner genes PRCC and novel partner SETD1B were associated with prominent papillary architecture while cases with partner genes ASPSCR1 and LUC7L3 were associated with a predominantly nested/alveolar pattern. The case with SFPQ-TFE3 fusion was characterized by biphasic morphology mimicking TFEB-like translocation RCC. We recommend FusionPlex analysis of RCC in patients under age 50 or when the histologic appearance suggests tRCC.

Molecular Genetics of Renal Cell Tumors: A Practical Diagnostic Approach

Renal epithelial cell tumors are composed of a heterogeneous group of tumors with variable morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. A "histo-molecular" approach is now an integral part of defining renal tumors, aiming to be clinically and therapeutically pertinent. Most renal epithelial tumors including the new and emerging entities have distinct molecular and genetic features which can be detected using various methods. Most renal epithelial tumors can be diagnosed easily based on pure histologic findings with or without immunohistochemical examination. Furthermore, molecular-genetic testing can be utilized to assist in arriving at an accurate diagnosis. In this review, we presented the most current knowledge concerning molecular-genetic aspects of renal epithelial neoplasms, which potentially can be used in daily diagnostic practice.

Expanding the morphologic spectrum of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: A study of 8 cases with papillary architecture

Although typically arranged in solid alveolar fashion, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may also show several other architectural growth patterns. We include in this series 8 chromophobe RCC cases with prominent papillary growth, a pattern very rarely reported or only mentioned as a feature of chromophobe RCC, which is lacking wider recognition The differential diagnosis of such cases significantly varies from the typical chromophobe RCC with its usual morphology, particularly its distinction from papillary RCC and other relevant and clinically important entities. Of 972 chromophobe RCCs in our files, we identified 8 chromophobe RCCs with papillary growth. We performed immunohistochemistry and array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) to investigate for possible chromosomal aberrations. Patients were 3 males and 5 females with age ranging from 30 to 84 years (mean 57.5, median 60 years). Tumor size was variable and ranged from 2 to 14 cm (mean 7.5, median 6.6 cm). Follow-up was available for 7 of 8 patients, ranging from 1 to 61 months (mean 20.1, median 12 months). Six patients were alive with no signs of aggressive behavior, and one died of the disease. Histologically, all cases were composed of dual cell population consisting of variable proportions of leaf-like cells with pale cytoplasm and eosinophilic cells. The extent of papillary component ranged from 15 to 100% of the tumor volume (mean 51%, median 50%). Sarcomatoid differentiation was identified only in the case with fatal outcome. Immunohistochemically, all tumors were positive for CK7, CD117 and Hale's Colloidal Iron. PAX8 was positive in 5 of 8 cases, TFE3 was focally positive 3 of 8 tumors, and Cathepsin K was focally positive in 2 of 8 tumors. All cases were negative for vimentin, AMACR and HMB45. Fumarate hydratase staining was retained in all tested cases. The proliferative activity was low (up to 1% in 7, up to 5% in one case). Three cases were successfully analyzed by aCGH and all showed a variable copy number variation profile with multiple chromosomal gains and losses. CONCLUSIONS: Chromophobe RCC demonstrating papillary architecture is an exceptionally rare carcinoma. The diagnosis can be challenging, although the cytologic features are consistent with the classic chromophobe RCC. Given the prognostic and therapeutic implications of accurately diagnosis other RCCs with papillary architecture (i.e., Xp11.2 translocation RCC, FH-deficient RCC), it is crucial to differentiate these cases from chromophobe RCC with papillary architecture. Based on this limited series, the presence of papillary architecture does not appear to have negative prognostic impact. However, its wider recognition may allow in depth studies on additional examples of this rare morphologic variant.

MiT Family Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma: from the Early Descriptions to the Current Knowledge

The new category of MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma has been included into the World Health Organization (WHO) classification in 2016. The MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma comprises Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma harboring TFE3 gene fusions and t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma harboring TFEB gene fusion. At the beginning, they were recognized in childhood; nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that these neoplasms can occur in adults as well. In the nineties, among Xp11 renal cell carcinoma, ASPL, PRCC, and SFPQ (PSF) were the first genes recognized as partners in TFE3 rearrangement. Recently, many other genes have been identified, and a wide spectrum of morphologies has been described. For this reason, the diagnosis may be challenging based on the histology, and the differential diagnosis includes the most common renal cell neoplasms and pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney. During the last decades, many efforts have been made to identify immunohistochemical markers to reach the right diagnosis. To date, staining for PAX8, cathepsin K, and melanogenesis markers are the most useful identifiers. However, the diagnosis requires the demonstration of the chromosomal rearrangement, and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) is considered the gold standard. The outcome of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma is highly variable, with some patients surviving decades with indolent disease and others dying rapidly of progressive disease. Despite most instances of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma having an indolent clinical course, a few published cases demonstrate aggressive behavior. Recently, renal cell carcinomas with TFEB amplification have been described in connection with t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma. Those tumors appear to be associated with a more aggressive clinical course. For the aggressive cases of MiT family translocation carcinoma, the optimal therapy remains to be determined; however, new target therapies seem to be promising, and the search for predictive markers is mandatory.

Combination of immunohistochemistry, FISH and RT-PCR shows high incidence of Xp11 translocation RCC: comparison of three different diagnostic methods

We evaluated the frequency of translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and how well the TFE3 immunoreactivity is concordant with TFE3 gene translocation status proved by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay and RT-PCR. TFE3 and Cathepsin K expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry in 185 RCC cases, and 48 cases either of more than weak expression of TFE3 or of positivity for Cathepsin K were done for FISH analysis and RT-PCR. All the RT-PCR positive cases were confirmed by cloning and sequencing. Of the 14 cases with strong nuclear TFE3 expression, 12 showed a break-apart signal by FISH. ASPL- and PRCC-TFE3 translocations were detected in 13 and one case, respectively, by RT-PCR. Of 21 cases with weak TFE3 expression, five were translocation-positive by FISH. ASPL-, PRCC-, and PSF-TFE3 translocations were detected by RT-PCR (n=3, 3, and 1, respectively). All 13 TFE3-negative/cathepsin K-positive cases were negative by FISH and two each harbored ASPL- and PRCC-TFE3 translocations that were detected by RT-PCR. A high rate of TFE3 immunoreactivity (8.6%) was confirmed by RT-PCR (13.5%) and FISH (9.7%). Higher translocation rate of RT-PCR means RT-PCR detected translocation in TFE3 weak expression group and only cathepsin K positive group more specifically than FISH. Thus, RT-PCR would complement FISH analysis for detecting translocation RCC with fusion partners.

Identification by FFPE RNA-Seq of a new recurrent inversion leading to RBM10-TFE3 fusion in renal cell carcinoma with subtle TFE3 break-apart FISH pattern

Gene fusions involving TFE3 defines the "Xp11.2 translocations" subclass of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) belonging to the MiT family translocation RCC. Four recurrent TFE3 fusion partners were identified to date: PRCC, ASPSCR1, SFPQ, and NONO. Break-apart TFE3 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections is currently the gold standard for identification of TFE3 rearrangements. Herein, we report a case of RCC with a morphological appearance of Xp11.2 translocation, and positive TFE3 immunostaining. By FISH, the spots constituting the split signal were barely spaced, suggestive of a chromosome X inversion rather than a translocation. We performed RNA-seq from FFPE material to test this hypothesis. RNA-seq suggested a fusion of RBM10 gene exon 17 (Xp11.23) with TFE3 gene exon 5 (Xp11.2). RBM10-TFE3 fusion transcript was confirmed using specific RT-PCR. Our work showed that RNA-Seq is a robust technique to detect fusion transcripts from FFPE material. A RBM10-TFE3 fusion was previously described in single case of Xp11.2 RCC. Although rare, RBM10-TFE3 fusion variant (from chromosome X paracentric inversion), therefore, appears to be a recurrent molecular event in Xp11.2 RCCs. RBM10-TFE3 fusion should be added in the list of screened fusion transcripts in targeted molecular diagnostic multiplex RT-PCR. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.