Aggressive and nonaggressive translocation t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma: comparative study of 6 cases and review of the literature

Renal mass biopsy - a practical and clinicopathologically relevant approach to diagnosis

Advancements in imaging modalities have increased the frequency of renal mass discovery. Imaging has typically been considered sufficient to guide management for a large proportion of these tumours, but renal mass biopsies (RMBs) have an increasing role in determining malignancy and can be a valuable tool for preventing unnecessary surgery in patients with benign tumours. A structured approach should be used to help to navigate the expanding repertoire of renal tumours, many of which are molecularly defined. In terms of tumour subtyping, the pathologist's strategy should focus on stratifying patients into clinically different prognostic groups according to our current knowledge of tumour behaviour, including benign, low-grade or indolent, intermediate malignant or highly aggressive. Crucial pathological features and morphological mimicry of tumours can alter the tumour's prognostic group. Thus, pathologists and urologists can use RMB to select patients with tumours at a reduced risk of progression, which can be safely managed with active surveillance within a tailored imaging schedule, versus tumours for which ablation or surgical intervention is indicated. RMB is also crucial in the oncological setting to distinguish between different high-grade tumours and guide tailored management strategies.

A rare case of TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified renal cell carcinoma diagnosed by whole-exome sequencing: clinicopathological and genetic feature report and literature review

BACKGROUND

TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rare and difficult to diagnose, with diverse histological patterns and immunohistochemical and poorly defined molecular genetic characteristics.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of a 63-year-old male admitted in 2017 with complex histomorphology, three morphological features of clear cell, eosinophilic and papillary RCC and resembling areas of glomerular and tubular formation. The immunophenotype also showed a mixture of CD10 and P504s. RCC with a high suspicion of collision tumors was indicated according to the 2014 WHO classification system; no precise diagnosis was possible. The patient was diagnosed at a different hospital with poorly differentiated lung squamous cell carcinoma one year after RCC surgery. We exploited molecular technology advances to retrospectively investigate the patient's molecular genetic alterations by whole-exome sequencing. The results revealed a 6p21 amplification in VEGFA and TFEB gene acquisition absent in other RCC subtypes. Clear cell, papillary, chromophobe, TFE3-translocation, eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC were excluded. Strong TFEB and Melan-A protein positivity prompted rediagnosis as TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified RCC as per 2022 WHO classification. TMB-L (low tumor mutational load), CCND3 gene acquisition and MRE11A and ATM gene deletion mutations indicated sensitivity to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor combinations and the FDA-approved targeted agents Niraparib (Grade C), Olaparib (Grade C), Rucaparib (Grade C) and Talazoparib (Class C). GO (Gene Ontology) and KEGG enrichment analyses revealed major mutations and abnormal CNVs in genes involved in biological processes such as the TGF-β, Hippo, E-cadherin, lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy signaling pathways, biofilm synthesis cell adhesion substance metabolism regulation and others. We compared TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified with TFEB-translocated RCC; significant differences in disease onset age, histological patterns, pathological stages, clinical prognoses, and genetic characteristics were revealed.

CONCLUSION

We clarified the patient's challenging diagnosis and discussed the clinicopathology, immunophenotype, differential diagnosis, and molecular genetic information regarding TFEB/6p21/VEGFA-amplified RCC via exome analysis and a literature review.

Metastatic Translocated Renal Cell Carcinoma in a Kidney Transplant Patient - a Case Report and Review of the Literature

TFEB-altered renal cell carcinomas are rare tumours. Here, we report the exceptional case of such a tumour in the setting of solid organ transplantation and with already metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. The primary tumour occurred in the native kidney and only focally showed biphasic morphology whereas the metastasis, among others to the transplant kidney, showed nonspecific, albeit different morphology, but both had consistent TFEB translocation. Treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab together with the multi-kinase inhibitor lenvatinib achieved partial response 14 months after diagnosis.

Incidental Detection of TFEB-Amplified Renal Cell Carcinoma by Colocated Gene Amplification of CCND3 (6p21): A Case Report and Review of the Literature

TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which belongs to the MITF family of RCC, is characterized by genomic amplification at the 6p21.1 locus where the TFEB gene is located. The vascular endothelial growth factor A and cyclin D3 genes are also located at this same locus. When tumors lack classic morphologic features, they may be classified as "RCC not otherwise specified (NOS)." However, it is increasingly important to accurately diagnose the RCC subtype to define the patient's individual prognosis and select the subsequent therapeutic modalities, which now include targeted agents. Therefore, knowledge of the diagnostic features of TFEB-altered RCCs, such as t(6;11) RCCs and TFEB-amplified RCCs, is critical for identifying these tumors. Herein, we present an interesting case of TFEB-amplified RCC that was initially diagnosed as RCC NOS on biopsy of a renal tumor in a community practice setting with available molecular findings demonstrating CCND3 amplification. The genetic abnormality was "accidentally" detected due to the amplification of the colocated CCND3 gene at the 6p21 locus of the TFEB gene on a limited genetic sequencing panel. This case highlights the importance of molecular tests in accurately diagnosing RCC and carefully interpreting molecular findings in the context of histomorphologic features.

Primary retroperitoneal renal cell carcinoma associated with transcription EB gene fusion

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with the distinct type of t(6;11) (p21;q12) translocation (transcription factor EB, TFEB) is a rare neoplasm. It is even less when talks about primary retroperitoneal TFEB RCCs. To our knowledge, no previous literature has been reported about this kind of RCCs. In this article, we report a case of primary retroperitoneal renal cell carcinoma associated with transcription EB gene fusion.

METHODS

A 73-year-old male patient presented with a retroperitoneal mass for more than one month.

RESULTS

Pathologically, the mass was soft and colorful, tumor cells showed a biphasic morphology characterized by nests of larger epithelioid cells surrounding intraluminal collections of smaller cells clustered around basement membrane materia. These tumor cells were positive for Pax-8, EMA, TFEB, CK, P504S, Vimentin and CD10 on immunohistochemical stain, and positive for TFEB on fluorescence in situ hybridization assay.

CONCLUSIONS

We reported the first case of primary retroperitoneal renal cell carcinoma associated with transcription EB gene fusion. The pathological feature of the case we reported was very typical. The best treatment at presentation is the total resection. Long-term follow-up study is needed in order to acquire better diagonitic quality and fulfill diagnostic requirements.

Clinico-pathological implications of the 2022 WHO Renal Cell Carcinoma classification

The new WHO classification of urogenital tumours published in 2022, contains significant revisions upon the previous 2016 version regarding Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC). While the most common histotype remains almost untouched, some of the main novelties concerns papillary RCC and oncocytic neoplasms. The main change is the introduction of a new category of molecularly-defined RCC, which includes TFE3-rearranged RCC, TFEB-rearranged, and TFEB-amplified RCC, FH-deficient RCC, SDH-deficient RCC, ALK-rearranged RCC, ELOC (formerly TCEB1)-mutated RCC, SMARCB1 (INI1)-deficient RCC. In this paper we analyze the current knowledge on emerging entities and molecularly-defined RCC to assess whether the current pathological classification offers the oncologist the possibility of selecting more specific and personalized treatments, from both those currently available, as well as those that will soon be available.

TFEB Rearranged Renal Cell Carcinoma: Pathological and Molecular Characterization of 10 Cases, with Novel Clinical Implications: A Single Center 10-Year Experience

To report our experience with the cases of TFEB rearranged RCC, with particular attention to the clinicopathological, immunohistochemical and molecular features of these tumors and to their predictive markers of response to therapy. We have retrieved the archives of 9749 renal cell carcinomas in the Institute of Urology, Peking University and found 96 rearranged RCCs between 2013 and 2022. Among these renal tumors, ten cases meet the morphologic, immunohistochemical and FISH characterization for TFEB rearranged RCC. The 10 patients' mean and median age is 34.9 and 34 years, respectively (range 23-55 years old), and the male to female ratio is 1:1.5. Macroscopically, these tumors generally have a round shape and clear boundary. They present with variegated, grayish yellow and grayish brown cut surface. The average maximum diameter of the tumor is 8.5 cm and the median 7.7 (ranged from 3.4 to 16) cm. Microscopically, the tumor is surrounded by a thick local discontinuous pseudocapsule. All tumors exhibit two types of cells: voluminous, clear and eosinophilic cytoplasm cells arranged in solid sheet, tubular growth pattern with local cystic changes, and papillary, pseudopapillary and compact nested structures are also seen in a few cases. Non-neoplastic renal tubules are entrapped in the tumor. A biphasic "rosette-like" pattern, psammomatous calcifications, cytoplasmic vacuolization, multinucleated giant cells and rhabdomyoid phenotype can be observed in some tumors. A few tumors may be accompanied by significant pigmentation or hemorrhage and necrosis. The nucleoli are equivalent to the WHO/ISUP grades 2-4. All tumors are moderately to strongly positive for Melan-A, TFEB, Vimentin and SDHB, and negative for CK7, CAIX, CD117, EMA, SMA, Desmin and Actin. CK20 and CK8/18 are weakly positive. In addition, AE1/AE3, P504s, HMB45 and CD10 are weakly moderately positive. TFE3 is moderately expressed in half of the cases. PAX8 can be negative, weakly positive or moderately-strongly positive. The therapy predictive marker for PD-L1 (SP263) is moderately to strongly positive membranous staining in all cases. All ten tumors demonstrate a medium frequency of split TFEB fluorescent signals ranging from 30 to 50% (mean 38%). In two tumors, the coincidence of the TFEB gene copy number gains are observed (3-5 fluorescent signals per neoplastic nuclei). Follow-up is available for all patients, ranging from 4 to 108 months (mean 44.8 and median 43.4 months). All patients are alive, without tumor recurrences or metastases. We described a group of TFEB rearranged RCC identified retrospectively in a large comprehensive Grade III hospital in China. The incidence rate was about 10.4% of rearranged RCCs and 0.1% of all the RCCs that were received in our lab during the ten-year period. The gross morphology, histological features, and immunohistochemistry of TFEB rearranged RCC overlapped with other types of RCC such as TFE3 rearranged RCC, eosinophilic cystic solid RCC, or epithelioid angiomyolipoma, making the differential diagnosis challenging. The diagnosis was based on TFEB fluorescence in situ hybridization. At present, most of the cases reported in the literature have an indolent clinical behavior, and only a small number of reported cases are aggressive. For this small subset of aggressive cases, it is not clear how to plan treatment strategies, or which predictive markers could be used to assess upfront responses to therapies. Between the possible options, immunotherapy currently seems a promising strategy, worthy of further exploration. In conclusion, we described a group of TFEB rearranged RCC identified in a large, comprehensive Grade III hospital in China, in the last 10 years.

Comprehensive study of 9 novel cases of TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma: an aggressive tumor with frequent PDL1 expression

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

First described in 2014, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with TFEB amplification (6p21) is a rare molecular subgroup whose diagnosis is challenging. The prognosis and therapeutic implications remain unclear.

METHODS

We report here the clinical, histological, immunohistochemical and genetic features of 9 novel cases. The pathological and immunohistochemical features were centrally reviewed by expert uropathologists. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) confirmed the diagnosis and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was performed to determine quantitative genomic alterations. We also performed an exhaustive review of the literature and compiled our data.

RESULTS

TFEB-amplified RCC were locally advanced with initial lymph node involvement in one case and liver metastasis in another case. They were high-grade eosinophilic tumors with papillary/pseudopapillary architecture, frequent positivity for melanocytic markers and frequent PDL1 expression. FISH demonstrated high-level TFEB amplification in 6 cases. One case showed concomitant TFEB translocation. CGH analysis identified complex alterations with frequent losses of 1p, 2q, 3p, 6p, and frequent 6p and 8q gains. VEGFA co-amplification was identified in all cases with a lower level than TFEB. The prognosis was poor with five patients having lymph node or distant metastases.

CONCLUSION

TFEB-amplified RCC is a rare molecular subgroup with variable morphology whose diagnosis is confirmed by FISH analysis. The complex alterations identified by CGH are consistent with an aggressive clinical behavior. The co-amplification of VEGFA and the expression of PDL1 could suggest a potential benefit from antiangiogenics and targeted immunotherapy in combination for these aggressive tumors.

Renal tumours of childhood: A review

Renal tumours of childhood are rare, although they are one of the most common solid tumours in children. They include numerous entities, which have different clinical, histological, molecular biological and prognostic features, so their precise diagnosis and staging are critical for appropriate treatment. The most common is Wilms' tumour (WT) with ~80-85 % of all cases, whereas other entities including mesoblastic nephroma, clear cell sarcoma, rhabdoid tumour, renal cell carcinoma, metanephric tumours and others are very rare (2-4 % each) which explains why they represent a big diagnostic challenge for diagnostic pathologists. They are subclassified into three risk groups - low, intermediate and high - which have different treatments and prognosis. There are two big study groups which have different approaches but remarkable similar outcomes. The International Society of Paediatric Oncology approach (followed in most of the world) is based on preoperative chemotherapy, followed by surgery and further therapy, whereas the Children's Oncology Group approach (followed mainly in the United States and Canada) is based on primary surgery, followed by postoperative treatment.

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.

Diagnostic utility of one-stop fusion gene panel to detect TFE3/TFEB gene rearrangement and amplification in renal cell carcinomas

MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (MiT-RCC) harbors translocations involving the TFE3 or TFEB genes. RCC with TFEB amplification is also identified and is associated with a more aggressive clinical course. Accurate diagnosis of MiT-RCC is crucial for patient management. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the Archer FusionPlex assay for detection of MiT-RCC with TFE3 or TFEB translocations and TFEB amplifications. RNA was extracted from 49 RCC FFPE tissue samples with known TFE3/TFEB status (26 TFE3 FISH positive, 12 TFEB FISH positive, 4 TFEB amplified (1 case both split and amplified), and 8 FISH negative) using the Covaris extraction kit. Target enriched cDNA libraries were prepared using the Archer FusionPlex kit and sequenced on the Illumina NextSeq 550. We demonstrate that the age of the specimen, quality of RNA, and sequencing metrics are important for fusion detection. Fusions were identified in 20 of 21 cases less than 2 years old, and TFE3/TFEB rearrangements were detected in all cases with Fusion QC ≥ 100. The assay identified intrachromosomal inversions in two cases (TFE3-RBM10 and NONO-TFE3), usually difficult to identify by FISH assays. TFEB mRNA expression and the TFEB/TFE3 mRNA expression ratio were significantly higher in RCCs with TFEB fusion and TFEB gene amplification compared to tumors without TFEB fusion or amplification. A cutoff TFEB/TFE3 ratio of 0.5 resulted in 97.3% concordance to FISH results with no false negatives. Our study demonstrates that the FusionPlex assay successfully identifies TFE3 and TFEB fusions including intrachromosomal inversions. Age of the specimen and certain sequencing metrics are important for successful fusion detection. Furthermore, mRNA expression levels may be used for predicting cases harboring TFEB amplification, thereby streamlining testing. This assay enables accurate molecular detection of multiple subtypes of MiT-RCCs in a convenient workflow.

t(6; 11) renal cell carcinoma. A case report successfully diagnosed by using fluorescence in situ hybridization

INTRODUCTION

Definitive diagnosis of translocation renal cell carcinoma is challenging. We herein experienced a case of translocation(6;11) renal cell carcinoma, successfully diagnosed by using fluorescence in situ hybridization.

CASE PRESENTATION

During the follow-up of a 21-year-old man with Crohn's disease, computed tomography revealed a 40-mm mass in the right kidney. Since imaging could not exclude malignancy, needle biopsy was performed. The histological diagnosis from the biopsy specimen was renal cell carcinoma, but histological typing had not been done adequately. A laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was then performed. Transcription factor EB immunoreactivity was positive, transcription factor EB rearrangement was shown by break apart and fusion fluorescence in situ hybridization. As a result, a definitive diagnosis of t(6; 11) renal cell carcinoma was made. There has been no recurrence for 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Transcription factor EB immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization are useful diagnostic tools for renal tumors of young generation.

Translocation carcinomas of the kidney

The MiT subfamily of transcription factors includes TFE3, TFEB, TFEC, and MITF. Gene fusions involving two of these transcription factors have been well-characterized in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The TFE3-rearranged RCC (also known as Xp11 translocation RCC) was first officially recognized in the 2004 World Health Organization (WHO) renal tumor classification. The TFEB-rearranged RCC, which typically harbor a t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation which results in a MALAT1-TFEB gene fusion, were first officially recognized in the 2016 WHO renal tumor classification. These two subtypes of translocation RCC have many similarities. Both disproportionately involve young patients, although adult translocation RCC overall outnumber pediatric cases. Both often have unusual and distinctive morphologies; the TFE3-rearranged RCCs frequently have clear cells with papillary architecture and abundant psammoma bodies, while the TFEB-rearranged RCCs frequently have a biphasic appearance with both small and large epithelioid cells and nodules of basement membrane material. However, the morphology of these two neoplasms can overlap, with one mimicking the other or other more common renal neoplasms. Both of these RCC underexpress epithelial immunohistochemical markers, such as cytokeratin and epithelial membrane antigen, relative to most other RCC. Unlike other RCC, both frequently express the cysteine protease cathepsin k and often express melanocytic markers like HMB45 and Melan A. Finally, TFE3 and TFEB have overlapping functional activity as these two transcription factors frequently heterodimerize and bind to the same targets. Therefore, these two neoplasms are now grouped together under the heading of "MiT family translocation RCC." Approximately 50 renal cell carcinomas with gene fusions involving the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene have now been reported. While those with a Vinculin-ALK fusion have distinctive features (predilection to affect children with sickle cell trait and to show solid architecture with striking cytoplasmic vacuolization), other ALK-fusion RCCs have more varied clinical presentations and pathologic features. This review summarizes our current knowledge of these recently described RCC.

New developments in existing WHO entities and evolving molecular concepts: The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) update on renal neoplasia

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) reviewed recent advances in renal neoplasia, particularly post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, to provide an update on existing entities, including diagnostic criteria, molecular correlates, and updated nomenclature. Key prognostic features for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain WHO/ISUP grade, AJCC/pTNM stage, coagulative necrosis, and rhabdoid and sarcomatoid differentiation. Accrual of subclonal genetic alterations in clear cell RCC including SETD2, PBRM1, BAP1, loss of chromosome 14q and 9p are associated with variable prognosis, patterns of metastasis, and vulnerability to therapies. Recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines increasingly adopt immunotherapeutic agents in advanced RCC, including RCC with rhabdoid and sarcomatoid changes. Papillary RCC subtyping is no longer recommended, as WHO/ISUP grade and tumor architecture better predict outcome. New papillary RCC variants/patterns include biphasic, solid, Warthin-like, and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity. For tumors with 'borderline' features between oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC, a term "oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, not further classified" is proposed. Clear cell papillary RCC may warrant reclassification as a tumor of low malignant potential. Tubulocystic RCC should only be diagnosed when morphologically pure. MiTF family translocation RCCs exhibit varied morphologic patterns and fusion partners. TFEB-amplified RCC occurs in older patients and is associated with more aggressive behavior. Acquired cystic disease (ACD) RCC-like cysts are likely precursors of ACD-RCC. The diagnosis of renal medullary carcinoma requires a negative SMARCB1 (INI-1) expression and sickle cell trait/disease. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC) can be distinguished from papillary RCC with overlapping morphology by losses of chromosomes 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 22. MTSCC with adverse histologic features shows frequent CDKN2A/2B (9p) deletions. BRAF mutations unify the metanephric family of tumors. The term "fumarate hydratase deficient RCC" ("FH-deficient RCC") is preferred over "hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome-associated RCC". A low threshold for FH, 2SC, and SDHB immunohistochemistry is recommended in difficult to classify RCCs, particularly those with eosinophilic morphology, occurring in younger patients. Current evidence does not support existence of a unique tumor subtype occurring after chemotherapy/radiation in early childhood.

Cathepsin K: A Novel Diagnostic and Predictive Biomarker for Renal Tumors

Simple Summary

Our understanding of renal tumors has increased in the last years with the description of several novel entities. The expanding morphological spectrum complicates the pathologist’s diagnosis, often requiring immunohistochemical analysis. The role of cathepsin K immunoexpression is widened as a diagnostic tool in several renal tumors. This review describes the usefulness of cathepsin K in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms, highlighting the biological knowledge underpinning its expression. Moreover, cathepsin K seems to be a downstream marker of different genetic alterations, with a possible role as a predictive marker that may prospectively guide the development of therapeutic approaches as a molecular target.

Abstract

Cathepsin K is a papain-like cysteine protease with high matrix-degrading activity. Among several cathepsins, cathepsin K is the most potent mammalian collagenase, mainly expressed by osteoclasts. This review summarizes most of the recent findings of cathepsin K expression, highlighting its role in renal tumors for diagnostic purposes and as a potential molecular target. Indeed, cathepsin K is a recognized diagnostic tool for the identification of TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma, TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, and pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma. More recently, its expression has been observed in a subgroup of eosinophilic renal neoplasms molecularly characterized by TSC/mTOR gene mutations. Interestingly, both TSC mutations or TFE3 rearrangement have been reported in pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Therefore, cathepsin K seems to be a downstream marker of TFE3/TFEB rearrangement, TFEB amplification, and mTOR pathway activation. Given the established role of mTOR inhibitors as a pharmacological option in renal cancers, cathepsin K could be of use as a predictive marker of therapy response and as a potential target. In the future, uropathologists may implement the use of cathepsin K to establish a diagnosis among renal tumors with clear cells, papillary architecture, and oncocytic features.

An Intratumoral Aneurysm and an Extrarenal Synchronous Cystic Tumour in a Case of a Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background

Renal cell carcinoma is a heterogeneous group of malignant tumors originating from the kidney. We report a case of a renal cell carcinoma with two very rare associates, i.e., a large intratumoral aneurysm and a synchronous extrarenal cystic tumor outside the main tumor. Case Presentation. A 31-year-old woman, who presented with painless hematuria and loin pain, was diagnosed to have a large renal mass measuring 15 × 9 × 8.5 cm with an intralesional arterial aneurysm measuring 4.5 × 3.5 cm on radiological examination. During surgery, a separate cystic tumor measuring 5 × 4.5 × 4 cm with distinct vascular supply was noted anteromedial to the kidney, in addition to the renal mass. The histology of the main tumor was compatible with t(6:11) type microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MiT) family translocation RCC. The aneurysm was of venous origin histologically, and a radiologically demonstrable arteriovenous fistula was recognized retrospectively. The extrarenal cyst has also showed similar histology to that of main tumor and had no evidence of a degenerated lymph node. Discussion. Although few cases were reported with various vascular anomalies associated with a renal tumor, this is the first ever case to find an arteriovenous fistula with a secondary venous aneurysm located inside a malignant renal mass. Similarly, no solid RCC is reported to present with an extrarenal malignant cystic nodule. The prognostic and oncological significance of the extrarenal malignant cyst is unclear. Both of these extraordinary features of this case were not properly identified on preoperative imaging. Reviewing the preoperative imaging when pathology reports are available helps to overcome difficulties in making the final diagnosis of complex cases.

Conclusion

RCCs can house vascular anomalies like arteriovenous fistula and venous aneurysms and can exist with concomitant extrarenal malignant cystic nodules.

Clinicopathologic and Molecular Analysis of the TFEB Fusion Variant Reveals New Members of TFEB Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas (RCCs): Expanding the Genomic Spectrum

Xp11 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with different gene fusions may have different clinicopathologic features. We sought to identify variant fusions in TFEB translocation RCC. A total of 31 cases of TFEB RCCs were selected for the current study; MALAT1-TFEB fusion was identified in 25 cases (81%, 25/31) using fusion probes. The remaining 6 cases (19%, 6/31) were further analyzed by RNA sequencing and 5 of them were detected with TFEB-associated gene fusions, including 2 ACTB-TFEB, 1 EWSR1-TFEB, 1 CLTC-TFEB, and 1 potential PPP1R10-TFEB (a paracentric inversion of the TFEB gene, consistent with "negative" TFEB split FISH result, and advising a potential diagnostic pitfall in detecting TFEB gene rearrangement). Four of the 5 fusion transcripts were successfully validated by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing. Morphologically, approximately one third (29%, 9/31) of TFEB RCCs showed typical biphasic morphology. The remaining two thirds of the cases (71%, 22/31) exhibited nonspecific morphology, with nested, sheet-like, or papillary architecture, resembling other types of renal neoplasms, such as clear cell RCC, Xp11 RCC, perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), or papillary RCC. Although cases bearing a MALAT1-TFEB fusion demonstrated variable morphologies, all 9 cases featuring typical biphasic morphology were associated with MALAT1-TFEB genotype. Accordingly, typical biphasic morphology suggests MALAT1-TFEB fusion, whereas atypical morphology did not suggest the specific type of fusion. Isolated or clustered eosinophilic cells were a common feature in TFEB RCCs, which may be a useful morphology diagnostic clue for TFEB RCCs. Clinicopathologic variables assessment showed that necrosis was the only morphologic feature that correlated with the aggressive behavior of TFEB RCC (P=0.004). In summary, our study expands the genomic spectrum and the clinicopathologic features of TFEB RCCs, and highlights the challenges of diagnosis and the importance of subtyping of this tumor by combining morphology and multiple molecular techniques.

Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers: III: Molecular Pathology of Kidney Cancer

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes are increasingly being discerned via their molecular underpinnings. Frequently this can be correlated to histologic and immunohistochemical surrogates, such that only simple targeted molecular assays, or none at all, are needed for diagnostic confirmation. In clear cell RCC, VHL mutation and 3p loss are well known; however, other genes with emerging important roles include SETD2, BAP1, and PBRM1, among others. Papillary RCC type 2 is now known to include likely several different molecular entities, such as fumarate hydratase (FH) deficient RCC. In MIT family translocation RCC, an increasing number of gene fusions are now described. Some TFE3 fusion partners, such as NONO, GRIPAP1, RBMX, and RBM10 may show a deceptive fluorescence in situ hybridization result due to the proximity of the genes on the same chromosome. FH and succinate dehydrogenase deficient RCC have implications for patient counseling due to heritable syndromes and the aggressiveness of FH-deficient RCC. Immunohistochemistry is increasingly available and helpful for recognizing both. Emerging tumor types with strong evidence for distinct diagnostic entities include eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC and TFEB/VEGFA/6p21 amplified RCC. Other emerging entities that are less clearly understood include TCEB1 mutated RCC, RCC with ALK rearrangement, renal neoplasms with mutations of TSC2 or MTOR, and RCC with fibromuscular stroma. In metastatic RCC, the role of molecular studies is not entirely defined at present, although there may be an increasing role for genomic analysis related to specific therapy pathways, such as for tyrosine kinase or MTOR inhibitors.

TFEB Expression Profiling in Renal Cell Carcinomas: Clinicopathologic Correlations

TFEB is overexpressed in TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas as well as in renal tumors with amplifications of TFEB at 6p21.1. As recent literature suggests that renal tumors with 6p21.1 amplification behave more aggressively than those with rearrangements of TFEB, we compared relative TFEB gene expression in these tumors. This study included 37 TFEB-altered tumors: 15 6p21.1-amplified and 22 TFEB-rearranged (including 5 cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas data set). TFEB status was verified using a combination of fluorescent in situ hybridization (n=27) or comprehensive molecular profiling (n=13) and digital droplet polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify TFEB mRNA expression in 6p21.1-amplified (n=9) and TFEB-rearranged renal tumors (n=19). These results were correlated with TFEB immunohistochemistry. TFEB-altered tumors had higher TFEB expression when normalized to B2M (mean: 168.9%, n=28), compared with non-TFEB-altered controls (mean: 7%, n=18, P=0.005). Interestingly, TFEB expression in tumors with rearrangements (mean: 224.7%, n=19) was higher compared with 6p21.1-amplified tumors (mean: 51.2%, n=9; P=0.06). Of note, classic biphasic morphology was only seen in TFEB-rearranged tumors and when present correlated with 6.8-fold higher TFEB expression (P=0.00004). Our results suggest that 6p21.1 amplified renal tumors show increased TFEB gene expression but not as much as t(6;11) renal tumors. These findings correlate with the less consistent/diffuse expression of downstream markers of TFEB activation (cathepsin K, melan A, HMB45) seen in the amplified neoplasms. This suggests that the aggressive biological behavior of 6p21.1 amplified renal tumors might be secondary to other genes at the 6p21.1 locus that are co-amplified, such as VEGFA and CCND3, or other genetic alterations.

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.

MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas: A 15th anniversary update

Microphthalmia (MiT) family translocation renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are a heterogeneous category of renal tumors which all express MiT transcription factors, typically from chromosomal translocation and rarely from gene amplification. This tumor family has two major subtypes [i.e., Xp11 translocation RCC and t(6;11) RCC] and several related neoplasms (i.e., TFEB amplification RCC and melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancers). Increased understanding of the clinical, pathological, molecular and prognostic heterogeneity of these tumors, since their official recognition in 2004, provides the opportunity to identify prognostic biomarkers and to understand the reasons for tumor aggression. We will review the literature from the past 15 years and highlight the need for a greater understanding of the molecular mechanisms underpinning heterogeneous tumor behavior.

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.

Microphthalmia family of transcription factors associated renal cell carcinoma

The microphthalmia (MiT) subfamily of transcription factors includes TFE3, TFEB, TFEC, and MITF. In the 2016 World Health Organization classification, MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) including Xp11 tRCC and t(6;11) RCC, was newly defined as an RCC subtype. Xp11 and t(6;11) RCC are characterized by the rearrangement of the MiT transcription factors TFE3 and TFEB, respectively. Recent studies identified the fusion partner-dependent clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features in TFE3-rearranged RCC. Furthermore, RCC with TFEB amplification, melanotic MiT family translocation neoplasms, was identified may as a unique subtype of MiT family associated renal neoplasms, along with MITF associated RCC. In this review, we will collect available literature of these newly-described RCCs, analyze their clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features, and summarize their molecular and genetic evidences. We expect this review would be beneficial for the understanding of these rare subtypes of RCCs, and eventually promote clinical management strategies.

VEGFA amplification/increased gene copy number and VEGFA mRNA expression in renal cell carcinoma with TFEB gene alterations

Amplification of vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) has been recently reported in TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas regardless the level of TFEB amplification. We sought to determine VEGFA amplification by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and VEGFA mRNA expression by in situ hybridization (RNAscope 2.5) in a series of 10 renal cell carcinomas with TFEB gene alterations, either amplification and/or rearrangement (t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma). TFEB gene rearrangement was demonstrated in eight cases, whereas the remaining two cases showed a high level of TFEB (> 10 copies of fluorescent signals) gene amplification without evidence of rearrangement. Among the eight t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas (TFEB-rearranged cases), one case displayed a high level of TFEB gene amplification and two showed increased TFEB gene copy number (3-4 copies of fluorescent signals). Those three cases behaved aggressively. By FISH, VEGFA was amplified in all three cases with TFEB amplification and increased VEGFA gene copy number was observed in the two aggressive cases t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas with an overlapping increased number of TFEB fluorescent signals. Overall, VEGFA mRNA expression was observed in 8 of 10 cases (80%); of these 8 cases, 3 cases showed high-level TFEB amplification, one case showed TFEB rearrangement with increased TFEB gene copy number, whereas four showed TFEB gene rearrangement without increased copy number. In summary, VEGFA amplification/increased gene copy number and VEGFA mRNA expression occur in TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, but also in a subset of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma demonstrating aggressive behavior, and in unamplified conventional t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma suggesting VEGFA as potential therapeutic target in these neoplasms even in the absence of TFEB amplification. We finally propose that all the renal tumors showing morphological characteristics suggesting t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma and all unclassified renal cell carcinomas, either high grade or low grade, should immunohistochemically be evaluated for cathepsin K and/or Melan-A and if one of them is positive, tested for TFEB gene alteration and VEGFA gene amplification.

Histological and molecular characterization of TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System recognizes microphthalmia transcription factor (MiT) family translocation carcinomas as a separate entity among renal cell carcinomas. TFE3 and transcription factor EB (TFEB) are members of the MiT family for which chromosomal rearrangements have been associated with renal cell carcinoma formation. TFEB translocation renal cell carcinoma is a rare tumor harboring a t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation. Recently, renal cell carcinomas with TFEB amplification have been identified. TFEB amplified renal cell carcinomas have to be distinguished from TFEB-translocated renal cancer, because they may demonstrate a more aggressive behavior. Herein, we present a TFEB-translocated and a TFEB-amplified carcinoma cases and describe their distinct histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular characteristics. In addition, we review conventional morphology, immunophenotype, genetic background, and clinical outcome of TFEB-rearranged RCCs in the literature, with a special emphasis on important differential diagnoses and the diagnostic approach.

Reactivity of CK7 across the spectrum of renal cell carcinomas with clear cells

AIMS

Current available data on cytokeratin 7 (CK7) immunostaining pattern in the clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) spectrum is conflicting. The aim of this study was to assess CK7 immunoreactivity within the spectrum of clear cell renal neoplasms, including clear cell RCC, multicystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential and clear cell papillary RCC-like tumours.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed two clones of CK7 and two tumour blocks for a total of 75 cases divided into five distinct groups: (i) low-grade clear cell RCC, (ii) high-grade clear cell RCC, (iii) multicystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, (iv) clear cell RCC with cystic changes and (v) clear cell papillary RCC-like tumours. We found the highest CK7 reactivity in low-grade clear cell RCC, multicystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential and clear cell papillary RCC-like groups, ranging from 60% to 93%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that CK7 immunoreactivity in clear cell RCC is variable, and the extent of staining depends on the grade and architectural growth patterns of the tumours.

WHO/ISUP classification, grading and pathological staging of renal cell carcinoma: standards and controversies

PURPOSE

Pathological parameters assessed on biopsies and resection specimens have a pivotal role in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

METHODS

A non-systematic literature search was performed, updated to January 2018, to identify key standards and controversies in the pathological classification, grading and staging of RCC.

RESULTS

Although most RCCs exhibit characteristic morphology that enables easy categorisation, RCCs show considerable morphological heterogeneity and it is not uncommon for there to be difficulty in assigning a tumour type, especially with rarer tumour subtypes. The differentiation between benign and malignant oncocytic tumours remains a particular challenge. The development of additional immunohistochemical and molecular tests is needed to facilitate tumour typing, because of the prognostic and therapeutic implications, and to enable more reliable identification of poorly differentiated metastatic tumours as being of renal origin. Any new tests need to be applicable to small biopsy samples, to overcome the heterogeneity of renal tumours. There is also a need to facilitate identification of tumour types that have genetic implications, to allow referral and management at specialist centres. Digital pathology has a potential role in such referral practice.

CONCLUSION

Much has been done to standardise pathological assessment of renal cell carcinomas in recent years, but there still remain areas of difficulty in classification and grading of these heterogeneous tumours.

"High-grade oncocytic renal tumor": morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 14 cases

The spectrum of the renal oncocytic tumors has been expanded in recent years to include several novel and emerging entities. We describe a cohort of novel, hitherto unrecognized and morphologically distinct high-grade oncocytic tumors (HOT), currently diagnosed as "unclassified" in the WHO classification. We identified 14 HOT by searching multiple institutional archives. Morphologic, immunohistochemical (IHC), molecular genetic, and molecular karyotyping studies were performed to investigate these tumors. The patients included 3 men and 11 women, with age range from 25 to 73 years (median 50, mean 49 years). Tumor size ranged from 1.5 to 7.0 cm in the greatest dimension (median 3, mean 3.4 cm). The tumors were all pT1 stage. Microscopically, they showed nested to solid growth, and focal tubulocystic architecture. The neoplastic cells were uniform with voluminous oncocytic cytoplasm. Prominent intracytoplasmic vacuoles were frequently seen, but no irregular (raisinoid) nuclei or perinuclear halos were present. All tumors demonstrated prominent nucleoli (WHO/ISUP grade 3 equivalent). Nine of 14 cases were positive for CD117 and cytokeratin (CK) 7 was either negative or only focally positive in of 6/14 cases. All tumors were positive for AE1-AE3, CK18, PAX 8, antimitochondrial antigen, and SDHB. Cathepsin K was positive in 13/14 cases and CD10 was positive in 12/13 cases. All cases were negative for TFE3, HMB45, Melan-A. No TFEB and TFE3 genes rearrangement was found in analyzable cases. By array CGH, complete chromosomal losses or gains were not found in any of the cases, and 3/9 cases showed absence of any abnormalities. Chromosomal losses were detected on chromosome 19 (4/9), 3 with losses of the short arm (p) and 1 with losses of both arms (p and q). Loss of chromosome 1 was found in 3/9 cases; gain of 5q was found in 1/9 cases. On molecular karyotyping, 3/3 evaluated cases showed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on 16p11.2-11.1 and 2/3 cases showed LOH at 7q31.31. Copy number (CN) losses were found at 7q11.21 (3/3), Xp11.21 (3/3), Xp11.22-11.21 (3/3), and Xq24-25 (2/3). CN gains were found at 13q34 (2/3). Ten patients with available follow up information were alive and without disease progression, after a mean follow-up of 28 months (1 to 112 months). HOT is a tumor with unique morphology and its IHC profile appears mostly consistent. HOT should be considered as an emerging renal entity because it does not meet the diagnostic criteria for other recognized eosinophilic renal tumors, such as oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), TFE3 and TFEB RCC, SDH-deficient RCC, and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC.

Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma mimicking epithelioid angiomyolipoma: series of 4 primary tumors and 2 metastases

Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC-RCC) is a novel entity of rare tumors with rather unique morphology and immunohistochemical profile. Until recently these tumors were characterized by indolent behavior. Herein, we describe a series of six primary and metastatic ESC-RCCs morphologically and immunophenotypically mimicking epithelioid angiomyolipoma (eAML). Retrospective review of unclassified RCCs with oncocytic phenotype yielded several candidate cases, 4 of which fulfilled diagnostic criteria after additional work-up. Three female patients and one male (median age 46) presented with unifocal tumors ranging from 1.5 cm to 20.5 cm (median 5 cm). On follow-up (median 32 months), 2 younger patients had no signs of tumor recurrence, but older patients presented with advanced disease. A 50 year-old female developed numerous bone metastases and tumor progression despite aggressive treatment. Two of these metastases were analyzed showing morphology and immunoprofile similar to the primary tumor. 50 year-old male had locally aggressive tumor invading adrenal gland and retroperitoneum. All cases exhibited ESC-like architecture of solid sheets, tight nests and variably sized cysts with hobnailed lining, as well as foci of diffuse growth with poorly cohesive brightly eosinophilic cells. Characteristic cytoplasmic stippling and coarse granularity was present in all cases including compact cytoplasmic "Leishmaniasis-like" globules. Due to high suspicion of eAML, immunostaining panels included melanocytic markers, cytokeratins and RCC-specific markers. All ESC-RCC were positive for CK20 and melanocytic markers Melan-A, Cathepsin-K or HMB45, as well as PAX8, whereas EMA, pan-cytokeratin, CK7, CKIT, CD10, CAIX were negative. Comparison with 5 eAML cases including 2 malignant tumors showed similar morphology and immune reactivity except for more frequent expression of HMB45 and lack of PAX8 positivity. In conclusion, we report 2 cases of aggressive ESC-RCC course including widespread bone metastases in addition to 2 typical indolent tumors. ESC-RCC and eAML could present with overlapping morphology and immunophenotype causing diagnostic difficulty and expanding our understanding of these rare tumors.

t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma: a study of seven cases including two with aggressive behavior, and utility of CD68 (PG-M1) in the differential diagnosis with pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma

Renal cell carcinomas with t(6;11) chromosome translocation involving the TFEB gene are indolent neoplasms which often occur in young patients. In this study, we report seven cases of renal cell carcinoma with TFEB rearrangement, two of whom had histologically proven metastasis. Patients (4F, 3M) ranged in age from 19 to 55 years (mean 37). One patient developed paratracheal and pleural metastases 24 months after surgery and died of disease after 46 months; another one recurred with neoplastic nodules in the perinephric fat and pelvic soft tissue. Histologically, either cytological or architectural appearance was peculiar in each case whereas one tumor displayed the typical biphasic morphology. By immunohistochemistry, all tumors labelled for cathepsin K, Melan-A and CD68 (KP1 clone). HMB45 and PAX8 staining were detected in six of seven tumors. All tumors were negative for CD68 (PG-M1 clone), CKAE1-AE3, CK7, CAIX, and AMACR. Seven pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipomas, used as control, were positive for cathepsin K, melanocytic markers, and CD68 (PG-M1 and KP1) and negative for PAX8. Fluorescence in situ hybridization results showed the presence of TFEB gene translocation in all t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas with a high frequency of split TFEB fluorescent signals (mean 74%). In the primary and metastatic samples of the two aggressive tumors, increased gene copy number was observed (3-5 fluorescent signals per neoplastic nuclei) with a concomitant increased number of CEP6. Review of the literature revealed older age and larger tumor size as correlating with aggressive behavior in these neoplasms. In conclusion, we present the clinical, morphological and molecular features of seven t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas, two with histologically demonstrated metastasis. We report the high frequency of split signals by FISH in tumors with t(6;11) chromosomal rearrangement and the occurrence of TFEB gene copy number gains in the aggressive cases, analyzing either the primary or metastatic tumor. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of CD68 (PG-M1) immunohistochemical staining in distinguishing t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma from pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma.

[TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma. A case report and review of the literature]

Renal carcinomas associated with translocation of transcription factors of the MiT/TFE family include, according to the latest World Health Organization classification, carcinomas with Xp11 translocation that involve the TFE3 gene and those with translocation t(6;11)(p21;q12) that affect the TFEB gene. Each one of these sub-types have well-defined clinicopathological and molecular characteristics. Currently, progress in molecular techniques has led to the description of neoplasms with molecular changes in these same genes but with alterations different to translocation. Thus, recently, cases have been published of TFEB-amplified renal carcinomas with prognoses that vary from cases associated with translocation and could therefore represent a new entity. We present a case of TFEB-amplified renal carcinoma with a full description of the clinicopathological characteristics and an updated revision of these neoplasms.

Detection of 6 TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas and 25 renal cell carcinomas with MITF translocations: systematic morphologic analysis of 85 cases evaluated by clinical TFE3 and TFEB FISH assays

Renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations demonstrate a wide morphologic spectrum, highlighting the need to consider these entities within the differential diagnosis of renal tumors encountered in clinical practice. Herein, we describe our experience with application of clinical fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays for detection of TFE3 and TFEB gene aberrations from 85 consecutive renal cell carcinoma cases submitted to our genitourinary FISH service. Results from 170 FISH assays performed on these tumors were correlated with available clinicopathologic findings. Ninety-eight percent of renal tumors submitted for FISH evaluation were from adult patients. Thirty-one (37%) tumors were confirmed to demonstrate MITF aberrations (21 TFE3 translocation, 4 TFEB translocation, and 6 TFEB amplification cases). Overall, renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations demonstrated morphologic features overlapping with clear cell, papillary, or clear cell papillary renal cell carcinomas. Renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations were significantly more likely to demonstrate dual (eosinophilic and clear) cytoplasmic tones (P=0.030), biphasic TFEB translocation renal cell carcinoma-like morphology (P=0.002), psammomatous calcifications (P=0.002), and nuclear pseudoinclusions (P=0.001) than renal cell carcinomas without MITF aberrations. Notably, 7/9 (78%) renal cell carcinomas exhibiting subnuclear clearing and linear nuclear array (6 of which showed high World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology nucleolar grade) demonstrated TFE3 translocation, an association that was statistically significant when compared with renal cell carcinomas without MITF aberrations (P=0.009). In this cohort comprising consecutive cases, TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas were more commonly identified than renal cell carcinomas with TFEB translocations, and four (67%) of these previously unreported TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas demonstrated oncocytic and papillary features with a high World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology nucleolar grade. In summary, TFE3 and TFEB FISH evaluation aids in identification and accurate classification of renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations, including TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, which may demonstrate aggressive behavior.

Melanotic MiT family translocation neoplasms: Expanding the clinical and molecular spectrum of this unique entity of tumors

MiT family translocation tumors are a group of neoplasms characterized by translocations involving MiT family transcription factors. The translocation renal cell carcinomas, TFE3 (Xp11.2) and TFEB (t6;11) are known members of this family. Melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancer is a more recently described entity. To date only 14 cases have been described. It is characterized by a distinct set of features including a nested epithelioid morphology, melanin pigmentation, labeling for markers of melanocytic differentiation, lack of labeling for markers of renal tubular differentiation, predominance in a younger age population and association with aggressive clinical behavior. There are noted similarities between that entity and TFE3 associated PEComas. There are no cases reported of equivalent melanotic TFEB translocation renal cancer. We report 2 rare cases of melanotic translocation renal neoplasms. The first is a melanotic TFE3 translocation renal cancer with an indolent clinical course, occurring in a patient more than 3-decades older than the usual average age in which such tumors have been described. The other case is, to our knowledge, the first reported melanotic TFEB translocation cancer of the kidney. Both cases exhibit the same H&E morphology as previously reported in melanotic translocation renal cancers and label accordingly with HMB45 and Melan-A. While the TFE3 melanotic tumor lacked any evidence of renal tubular differentiation, the TFEB melanotic cancer exhibited some staining for renal tubular markers. Based on the unique features noted above, these two cases expand the clinical and molecular spectrum of the melanotic translocation renal cancers.

Renal Cell Carcinoma With Chromosome 6p Amplification Including the TFEB Gene: A Novel Mechanism of Tumor Pathogenesis?

Amplification of chromosome 6p has been implicated in aggressive behavior in several cancers, but has not been characterized in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We identified 9 renal tumors with amplification of chromosome 6p including the TFEB gene, 3 by fluorescence in situ hybridization, and 6 from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) databases. Patients' ages were 28 to 78 years (median, 61 y). Most tumors were high stage (7/9 pT3a, 2/9 pN1). Using immunohistochemistry, 2/4 were positive for melanocytic markers and cathepsin K. Novel TFEB fusions were reported by TCGA in 2; however, due to a small composition of fusion transcripts compared with full-length transcripts (0.5/174 and 3.3/132 FPKM), we hypothesize that these represent secondary fusions due to amplification. Five specimens (4 TCGA, 1 fluorescence in situ hybridization) had concurrent chromosome 3p copy number loss or VHL deletion. However, these did not resemble clear cell RCC, had negative carbonic anhydrase IX labeling, lacked VHL mutation, and had papillary or unclassified histology (2/4 had gain of chromosome 7 or 17). One tumor each had somatic FH mutation and SMARCB1 mutation. Chromosome 6p amplification including TFEB is a previously unrecognized cytogenetic alteration in RCC, associated with heterogenous tubulopapillary eosinophilic and clear cell histology. The combined constellation of features does not fit cleanly into an existing tumor category (unclassified), most closely resembling papillary or translocation RCC. The tendency for high tumor stage, varied tubulopapillary morphology, and a subset with melanocytic marker positivity suggests the possibility of a unique tumor type, despite some variation in appearance and genetics.

TFEB-amplified Renal Cell Carcinomas: An Aggressive Molecular Subset Demonstrating Variable Melanocytic Marker Expression and Morphologic Heterogeneity

Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) with the t(6;11)(p21;q12) chromosome translocation are low-grade RCC which often occur in young patients. They typically feature an unusual biphasic morphology characterized by nests of larger epithelioid cells surrounding intraluminal collections of smaller cells clustered around basement membrane material. The t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation fuses the Alpha (MALAT1) gene with the TFEB transcription factor gene, resulting in upregulated expression of intact native TFEB that drives the aberrant expression of melanocytic markers which is a hallmark of this distinctive neoplasm. We now report 8 cases of RCC, which demonstrate TFEB gene amplification (6 without TFEB rearrangement, 2 with concurrent TFEB rearrangement) and demonstrate downstream consequences of TFEB overexpression. Like the unamplified t(6;11) RCC, all TFEB-amplified RCC were associated with aberrant melanocytic marker expression. However, several differences between TFEB-amplified RCC and the usual unamplified t(6;11) RCC are evident. First, TFEB-amplified RCC occurred in older patients (median age, 64.5 y) compared with unamplified t(6;11) RCC (median age, 31 y). Second, the morphology of TFEB-amplified RCC is not entirely distinctive, frequently featuring nests of high-grade epithelioid cells with eosinophilic cytoplasm associated with pseudopapillary formation and necrosis, or true papillary formations. These patterns raise the differential diagnosis of high-grade clear cell and papillary RCC. Third, TFEB and melanocytic marker expression was more variable within the TFEB-amplified RCC. TFEB protein expression by immunohistochemistry was detectable in 6 of 8 cases. While all 8 cases expressed melan-A, only 5 of 8 expressed cathepsin K and only 3 of 8 expressed HMB45. Fourth, the TFEB-amplified RCC were associated with a more aggressive clinical course; 3 of 8 cases presented with advanced stage or metastatic disease, 2 subsequently developed metastatic disease, whereas the other 3 cases had minimal/no follow-up. Our results are corroborated by scant data reported on 6 TFEB-amplified RCC in the literature, gleaned from 1 case report, 1 abstract, and 4 individual cases identified within 2 genomic studies of large cohorts of RCC. In summary, TFEB-amplified RCC represent a distinct molecular subtype of high-grade adult RCC associated with aggressive clinical behavior, variable morphology, and aberrant melanocytic marker expression.

TFEB-VEGFA (6p21.1) co-amplified renal cell carcinoma: a distinct entity with potential implications for clinical management

A subset of renal cell carcinomas shows TFEB overexpression secondary to MALAT1-TFEB gene fusion. As alternate mechanisms of TFEB overexpression are likely to have the same effect, we sought to determine the frequency of amplification of TFEB and the adjacent VEGFA gene at 6p21.1. As patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomas are managed with anti-VEGF therapies, we retrospectively assessed therapeutic response in patients with amplified tumors. Amplification status was analyzed for 875 renal cell carcinomas from our institution, a consultative case and 794 cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Cases were classified as having low level (5-10 copies), and high-level amplification (>10 copies), and were further analyzed for adjacent oncogene copy number status (n=6; 3 single-nucleotide polymorphism genomic microarray, 3 The Cancer Genome Atlas) and structural rearrangements (n=1; mate-pair sequencing). These were then reviewed for histopathology, immunophenotype, and response to VEGF-targeted therapy on follow-up. In all, 10/875 (1.1%) institutional cases, 1 consultative case, and 3/794 (0.4%) of The Cancer Genome Atlas cases showed TFEB high-level amplification, while 14/875 (1.6%) cases showed TFEB low-level amplification. All cases had associated VEGFA amplification. This was confirmed with evaluation for copy number changes (n=6). The 6p21.1 high and low-level amplified tumors occurred in adults (mean age: 66), with over half being ≥pT3 (13/25, 52%), and most showed oncocytic, tubulopapillary features and high grade (≥grade 3: 20/22, 91%). These were aggressive tumors with metastasis and death from renal cell carcinoma in 11 (of 24, 46%) cases. Four patients received targeted therapy and had a mean survival of 31 months (range: 17-50) post nephrectomy. In summary, a group of aggressive renal cell carcinomas show genomic amplification of the 6p21.1 region including TFEB and VEGFA genes and share morphologic features. Additional studies are warranted to determine whether these patients respond to anti-VEGF therapy.

A Review of Translocation T(6;11) Renal Cell Carcinoma Tumors in the Adult Patient

Historically, T(6;11) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been associated with the pediatric and adolescent populations and documentation of this tumor in adults has been rare. However, the frequency of translocation renal cell carcinoma (TRCC) may be widely underestimated in the adult population due to an inadequate immunohistochemical workup or misdiagnosis from similar gross and histological findings to other RCC. A subset of MiT family translocation carcinomas, t(6:11) (p21;q12) translocation tumors cause an alpha-TFEB gene fusion. Morphologically, this neoplasm tends to mimic the various types of RCC's, including clear cell, papillary, and even epitheloid angiomyolipomas. Adult cases of TRCC have shown to behave more aggressively than their indolent pediatric counterpart, but due to the limited number of reported cases the true nature of these tumors has yet to be determined. The aim of this review is to bring an awareness of translocation RCC to better understand its diagnoses, treatment and prognosis, and, in turn, to allow for new cases to further highlight the behavior of this rare variant.