Renal tumours in early life

Expression of cyclin D1 in clear cell sarcoma of kidney. Is it useful in differentiating it from its histological mimics?

BACKGROUND

Clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK) is a rare malignant pediatric renal neoplasm with a heterogeneous histological appearance which often results in misdiagnosis. There are no specific immunohistochemical markers which can help in differentiating CCSK from other pediatric renal neoplasms. Recently Cyclin D1 has been investigated as a possible marker in this regard. In this study, we aim to determine the usefulness of Cyclin D1 in differentiating between CCSK and other pediatric renal neoplasms and to compare our results with those of recently published studies.

METHODS

A total of 48 cases of CCSK, Wilms tumor (WT), renal rhabdoid tumor, mesoblastic nephroma, renal Ewing sarcoma and neuroblastoma were included in the study. All cases were stained with cyclin D1. Extent of Cyclin D1 staining was graded according to percentage of positive tumor cells as diffuse (> 70%), focal (5 to 70%), and negative (< 5%). Intensity of Cyclin D1 staining was graded as strong or 3+, moderate or 2+ and weak or 1 + .

RESULTS

Most or all cases of CCSK, neuroblastoma and renal Ewing sarcoma demonstrated diffuse and strong positivity for Cyclin D1. Most cases of Wilms tumor (epithelial component) also demonstrated diffuse and often strong positivity for Cyclin D1. In most cases of WT, blastemal component was negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Cyclin D1 is a sensitive but not specific immunohistochemical marker for CCSK and many other pediatric renal malignant neoplasms as well as for neuroblastoma. Hence, careful examination of histological features is important in reaching an accurate diagnosis in CCSKs. However, Cyclin D1 is very helpful in distinguishing between blastema-rich WT and CCSK.

Clear cell sarcoma, cellular mesoblastic nephroma and metanephric adenoma: cytological features and differential diagnosis with Wilms tumour

Wilms' Tumour (WT) is the most common kidney tumour in childhood, this fact and the embryonic complexity of WT create, whenever one of its three classical components predominates in cytologic smears, difficulties in the differential diagnoses with other less common entities. In the present study, we review the cytological and immunohistochemical characteristics of three children renal tumours, a Clear Cell Sarcoma of the Kidney (CCSK-case1), a Cellular Mesoblastic Nephroma (CMN-case2) and a Metanephric Adenoma (MA-case3) and compare them, for differential diagnostic purposes, with smears of blastematous, mesenchymal and epithelial predominant WTs, previously diagnosed in our Department. In all cases a mass was detected in the abdomen (2 and 8 year old children-cases 1 and 3, respectively), and pre-birth in case 2 (the tumour was detected during pregnancy). Fine needle biopsy was performed followed by routine cytologic examination. The presence of moderate amount of blue pale cytoplasm in neoplastic cells (case1), the presence of tightly cohesive, bland, spindle tumour cells (case2) and the identification of small, well differentiated epithelial tubules with psammoma bodies in case 3, were the main morphologic characteristics that we think represent the most important elements for distinguishing our cases from a WT. Immunoreactivity was only helpful in case 1 as we found a characteristic dot-like pattern positivity for vimentin, in the absence of immunoreactivity for the other markers that are usually positive in WT. Summing up, these three cases demonstrate that cytopathologists should be aware of the occurrence of uncommon renal neoplasms in childhood and should be acquainted with their characteristics, in order to avoid false diagnoses.