MDM2 amplification and immunohistochemical expression in sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma

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.

Soft Tissue Sarcomas with Chromosomal Alterations in the 12q13-15 Region: Differential Diagnosis and Therapeutic Implications

The chromosomal region 12q13-15 is rich in oncogenes and contains several genes involved in the pathogenesis of various mesenchymal neoplasms. Notable genes in this region include MDM2, CDK4, STAT6, DDIT3, and GLI1. Amplification of MDM2 and CDK4 genes can be detected in various mesenchymal and nonmesenchymal neoplasms. Therefore, gene amplification alone is not entirely specific for making a definitive diagnosis and requires the integration of clinical, radiological, morphological, and immunohistochemical findings. Neoplasms with GLI1 alterations may exhibit either GLI1 rearrangements or amplifications of this gene. Despite the diagnostic implications that the overlap of genetic alterations in neoplasms with changes in genes within the 12q13-15 region could create, the discovery of coamplifications of MDM2 with CDK4 and GLI1 offers new therapeutic targets in neoplasms with MDM2/CDK4 amplification. Lastly, it is worth noting that MDM2 or CDK4 amplification is not exclusive to mesenchymal neoplasms; this genetic alteration has also been observed in other epithelial neoplasms or melanomas. This suggests the potential use of MDM2 or CDK4 inhibitors in neoplasms where alterations in these genes do not aid the pathological diagnosis but may help identify potential therapeutic targets. In this review, we delve into the diagnosis and therapeutic implications of tumors with genetic alterations involving the chromosomal region 12q13-15, mainly MDM2, CDK4, and GLI1.

The Application and Pitfalls of Immunohistochemical Markers in Challenging Diagnosis of Genitourinary Pathology

CONTEXT.—

The morphologic features of different entities in genitourinary pathology overlap, presenting a diagnostic challenge, especially when diagnostic materials are limited. Immunohistochemical markers are valuable when morphologic features alone are insufficient for definitive diagnosis. The World Health Organization classification of urinary and male genital tumors has been updated for 2022. An updated review of immunohistochemical markers for newly classified genitourinary neoplasms and their differential diagnosis is needed.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review immunohistochemical markers used in the diagnosis of genitourinary lesions in the kidney, bladder, prostate, and testis. We particularly emphasized difficult differential diagnosis and pitfalls in immunohistochemistry application and interpretation. New markers and new entities in the 2022 World Health Organization classifications of genitourinary tumors are reviewed. Recommended staining panels for commonly encountered difficult differential diagnoses and potential pitfalls are discussed.

DATA SOURCES.—

Review of current literature and our own experience.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Immunohistochemistry is a valuable tool in the diagnosis of problematic lesions of the genitourinary tract. However, the immunostains must be carefully interpreted in the context of morphologic findings with a thorough knowledge of pitfalls and limitations.

Spindle Cell Tumors of the Pleura and the Peritoneum: Pathologic Diagnosis and Updates

A diverse group of both benign and malignant spindle cell tumors can involve the pleura or the peritoneum. Due to their rarity and overlapping morphologic features, these tumors can pose considerable diagnostic difficulty in surgical pathology. As these tumors differ in their prognosis and clinical management, their correct pathologic diagnosis is critical. In addition to histologic assessment, select immunohistochemical and molecular tools can aid the distinction among these tumors. In this review, we consider some of the major histologic differential diagnosis of spindle cell tumors involving these serosal membranes. This list of tumors includes: solitary fibrous tumor, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor, desmoid fibromatosis, synovial sarcoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma, spindle cell melanoma, dedifferentiated liposarcoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma. We describe their salient clinicopathologic and genetic findings, with a review on some of the recent discoveries on their molecular pathogenesis.

Immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of renal epithelial neoplasms

Despite the increasing number of newly identified renal neoplasms, the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can usually be reached with careful histologic examination and a limited immunohistochemical (IHC) panel. Clear cell, papillary, chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma account for more than 90% of renal neoplasia in adults, and sophisticated ancillary tools are usually unnecessary. Renal tumors with entity-defining genetic alterations may ultimately require molecular confirmation via cytogenetics or sequencing technologies, such as RCC with TFE3, TFEB, or ALK gene rearrangements, or TFEB amplified RCC. In fumarate hydratase-deficient and succinate dehydrogenase-deficient RCC, highly specific IHC markers can strongly suggest the diagnosis. In the metastatic setting, PAX8 and carbonic anhydrase 9 are among the most helpful markers for confirming RCC and clear cell type, respectively; however, caution should be exercised in the absence of a current or historical renal mass. In diagnostically challenging cases, such as renal eosinophilic tumors with low-grade nuclear features, or infiltrative high-grade tumors, careful examination coupled with a judicious panel of IHC markers usually resolves the diagnosis. This review offers concise algorithms for diagnosis of kidney neoplasia with the latest recognized, provisional, and emerging entities to daily pathology practice.

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.

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

Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma is a highly aggressive form of carcinoma, histologically showing both carcinomatous and mesenchymal component in different proportions. We present a case of advanced type 1 papillary sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma infiltrating adjacent organs and showing positivity for MDM2 by immunohistochemistry and MDM2 amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. This finding, together with sarcomatoid morphology, poses a potential pitfall for diagnosis with dedifferentiated liposarcoma. MDM2 is known to be altered in various human sarcomas. Only recently, MDM2 alterations have been reported in carcinomas. The presented case illustrates the need of thorough sampling with clinic-pathological correlation before making a final diagnosis in sarcomatoid retroperitoneal tumours. Additionally, the potential clinical implications of MDM2 amplification in renal cell carcinoma are discussed.