MDM2-positive papillary sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: a potential diagnostic pitfall

Diagnosing liposarcoma on (peri)-renal mass biopsy: A clinicopathological study of 30 cases

AIMS

Classification of renal neoplasms on small tissue biopsies is in increasing demand, and maintaining broad differential diagnostic considerations in this setting is necessary. When evaluating a renal or perirenal tumour biopsy with sarcomatoid morphology, together with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma as top diagnostic considerations, it is vital to additionally consider the possibility of well-differentiated and de-differentiated liposarcoma.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study reports a series of 30 biopsy samples from sites in or around the kidney collected from four institutions in which the correct diagnosis was either well-differentiated or de-differentiated liposarcoma. The majority (26 of 30, 87%) of lesions were accurately diagnosed on biopsy sampling, all of which incorporated testing for MDM2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH) or a combination of the two as part of the diagnostic work-up. Tumour expression of MDM2 by IHC without confirmatory FISH analysis was sometimes (30%) sufficient to reach a diagnosis, but demonstration of MDM2 amplification by FISH was ascertained in the majority (57%) of biopsy samples. A diagnosis of de-differentiated liposarcoma was not definitively established until resection in four (13%) patients, as no MDM2 testing was performed on the corresponding pre-operative biopsies.

CONCLUSIONS

When a retroperitoneal tumour is not clinically suspected, histological consideration of a liposarcoma diagnosis may be overlooked. Implementation of ancillary immunohistochemical and cytogenetic testing can ultimately lead to a definitive diagnosis in this potentially misleading anatomical location.

Sarcomatoid and Rhabdoid Renal Cell Carcinoma: Clinical, Pathologic, and Molecular Genetic Features

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with sarcomatoid and rhabdoid morphologies has an aggressive biological behavior and a typically poor prognosis. The current 2022 WHO classification of renal tumors does not include them as distinct histologic entities but rather as transformational changes that may arise in a background of various distinct histologic types of RCC. The sarcomatoid component shows malignant spindle cells that may grow as intersecting fascicles, which is reminiscent of pleomorphic undifferentiated sarcoma. The rhabdoid cells are epithelioid cells with eccentrically located vesicular nuclei with prominent nucleoli and large intracytoplasmic eosinophilic inclusions. Studies have shown that RCCs with sarcomatoid and rhabdoid differentiation have distinctive molecular features. Sarcomatoid RCC harbors shared genomic alterations in carcinomatous and rhabdoid components, but also enrichment of specific genomic alterations in the sarcomatoid element, suggesting molecular pathways for development of sarcomatoid growth from a common clonal ancestor. Rhabdoid differentiation also arises through clonal evolution although less is known of specific genomic alterations in rhabdoid cells. Historically, treatment has lacked efficacy, although recently immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1/CTLA-4 inhibitors has produced significant clinical responses. Reporting of sarcomatoid and rhabdoid features in renal cell carcinoma is required by the College of American Pathologists and the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. This manuscript reviews the clinical, pathologic, and molecular features of sarcomatoid RCC and rhabdoid RCC with emphasis on the morphologic features of these tumors, significance of diagnostic recognition, the molecular mechanisms of tumorigenesis and differentiation along sarcomatoid and rhabdoid lines, and advances in treatment, particularly immunotherapy.

Development of a PAK4-targeting PROTAC for renal carcinoma therapy: concurrent inhibition of cancer cell proliferation and enhancement of immune cell response

BACKGROUND

Finding the oncogene, which was able to inhibit tumor cells intrinsically and improve the immune answers, will be the future direction for renal cancer combined treatment. Following patient sample analysis and signaling pathway examination, we propose p21-activated kinase 4 (PAK4) as a potential target drug for kidney cancer. PAK4 exhibits high expression levels in patient samples and plays a regulatory role in the immune microenvironment.

METHODS

Utilizing AI software for peptide drug design, we have engineered a specialized peptide proteolysis targeting chimera (PROTAC) drug with selectivity for PAK4. To address challenges related to drug delivery, we developed a nano-selenium delivery system for efficient transport of the peptide PROTAC drug, termed PpD (PAK4 peptide degrader).

FINDINGS

We successfully designed a peptide PROTAC drug targeting PAK4. PpD effectively degraded PAK4 with high selectivity, avoiding interference with other homologous proteins. PpD significantly attenuated renal carcinoma proliferation in vitro and in vivo. Notably, PpD demonstrated a significant inhibitory effect on tumor proliferation in a fully immunocompetent mouse model, concomitantly enhancing the immune cell response. Moreover, PpD demonstrated promising tumor growth inhibitory effects in mini-PDX and PDO models, further underscoring its potential for clinical application.

INTERPRETATION

This PAK4-targeting peptide PROTAC drug not only curtails renal cancer cell proliferation but also improves the immune microenvironment and enhances immune response. Our study paves the way for innovative targeted therapies in the management of renal cancer.

FUNDING

This work is supported by Research grants from non-profit organizations, as stated in the Acknowledgments.

Undifferentiated and dedifferentiated urological carcinomas: lessons learned from the recent developments

Loss of the morphological and immunophenotypic characteristics of a neoplasm is a well-known phenomenon in surgical pathology and occurs across different tumor types in almost all organs. This process may be either partial, characterized by transition from well differentiated to undifferentiated tumor component (=dedifferentiated carcinomas) or complete (=undifferentiated carcinomas). Diagnosis of undifferentiated carcinoma is significantly influenced by the extent of sampling. Although the concept of undifferentiated and dedifferentiated carcinoma has been well established for other organs (e.g. endometrium), it still has not been fully defined for urological carcinomas. Accordingly, undifferentiated/ dedifferentiated genitourinary carcinomas are typically lumped into the spectrum of poorly differentiated, sarcomatoid, or unclassified (NOS) carcinomas. In the kidney, dedifferentiation occurs across all subtypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but certain genetically defined RCC types (SDH-, FH- and PBRM1- deficient RCC) seem to have inherent tendency to dedifferentiate. Histologically, the undifferentiated component displays variable combination of four patterns: spindle cells, pleomorphic giant cells, rhabdoid cells, and undifferentiated monomorphic cells with/without prominent osteoclastic giant cells. Any of these may occasionally be associated with heterologous mesenchymal component/s. Their immunophenotype is often simple with expression of vimentin and variably pankeratin or EMA. Precise subtyping of undifferentiated (urothelial versus RCC and the exact underlying RCC subtype) is best done by thorough sampling supplemented as necessary by immunohistochemistry (e.g. FH, SDHB, ALK) and/ or molecular studies. This review discusses the morphological and molecular genetic spectrum and the recent develoments on the topic of dedifferentiated and undifferentiated genitourinary carcinomas.

Kidney cancer biomarkers and targets for therapeutics: survivin (BIRC5), XIAP, MCL-1, HIF1α, HIF2α, NRF2, MDM2, MDM4, p53, KRAS and AKT in renal cell carcinoma

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing worldwide with an approximate 20% mortality rate. The challenge in RCC is the therapy-resistance. Cancer resistance to treatment employs multiple mechanisms due to cancer heterogeneity with multiple genetic and epigenetic alterations. These changes include aberrant overexpression of (1) anticancer cell death proteins (e.g., survivin/BIRC5), (2) DNA repair regulators (e.g., ERCC6) and (3) efflux pump proteins (e.g., ABCG2/BCRP); mutations and/or deregulation of key (4) oncogenes (e.g., MDM2, KRAS) and/or (5) tumor suppressor genes (e.g., TP5/p53); and (6) deregulation of redox-sensitive regulators (e.g., HIF, NRF2). Foci of tumor cells that have these genetic alterations and/or deregulation possess survival advantages and are selected for survival during treatment. We will review the significance of survivin (BIRC5), XIAP, MCL-1, HIF1α, HIF2α, NRF2, MDM2, MDM4, TP5/p53, KRAS and AKT in treatment resistance as the potential therapeutic biomarkers and/or targets in RCC in parallel with our analized RCC-relevant TCGA genetic results from each of these gene/protein molecules. We then present our data to show the anticancer drug FL118 modulation of these protein targets and RCC cell/tumor growth. Finally, we include additional data to show a promising FL118 analogue (FL496) for treating the specialized type 2 papillary RCC.