2
|
Gupta S, Sukov WR, Vanderbilt CM, Shen W, Herrera-Hernandez L, Lohse CM, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, Leibovich BC, Jimenez RE, Cheville JC. A contemporary guide to chromosomal copy number profiling in the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol 2022; 40:512-524. [PMID: 34092479 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.04.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/28/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The routine clinical implementation of molecular methods other than fluorescence in situ hybridization in the evaluation of renal neoplasia is currently limited, as the current standard of care primarily involves a combination of morphologic and immunophenotypic analysis of such tumors. Amongst various molecular techniques, global copy number profiling using single nucleotide polymorphism-based microarrays, colloquially referred to as SNP-arrays, is being increasingly utilized to profile renal tumors, as several subtypes have characteristic recurrent patterns of copy number alterations. Recurrent copy number alterations in common tumor types include loss of chromosome 3p in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), gain of chromosomes 7 and 17 in papillary RCC and multiple losses in chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21 in chromophobe RCC. Such assays are being increasingly utilized in the clinical setting. Herein, we discuss some common clinical applications of such testing that includes high yield diagnostic and prognostic applications. Diagnostic utility includes evaluation of tumor types that are primarily defined by underlying copy number alterations, establishing the underlying subtype in high grade dedifferentiated (unclassified) renal tumors, as well as assessment of loss of heterozygosity, which is an important component in the workup for germline alterations in tumor suppressor genes. Universal adoption of these techniques across clinical laboratories will likely be significantly affected by variables such as cost, reimbursement, and turnaround time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sounak Gupta
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
| | - William R Sukov
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Chad M Vanderbilt
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Wei Shen
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Christine M Lohse
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | - Rafael E Jimenez
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - John C Cheville
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zito Marino F, Brunelli M, Rossi G, Calabrese G, Caliò A, Nardiello P, Martignoni G, Squire JA, Cheng L, Massi D, Franco R. Multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization diagnostic applications in solid and hematological tumors. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2021; 21:161-173. [PMID: 33593207 DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2021.1887733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Multitarget FISH (mFISH) is a technique allowing for simultaneous detection of multiple targets sequences on the same slide through the choice of spectrally distinct fluorophore labels. The mFISH could represent a useful tool in the field of precision oncology.Areas covered: This review discusses the potential applications of mFISH technology in the molecular diagnosis of different solid and hematological tumors, including non-small cell lung cancers, melanomas, renal cell carcinomas, bladder carcinomas, germ cell tumors, and multiple myeloma, as commonly required in the clinical practice.Expert Opinion: In this emerging era of the tailored therapies and newer histo-molecular classifications, there are increasing numbers of predictive and diagnostic biomarkers required for effective clinical care. The mFISH approach may have several applications in the common clinical practice, improving the molecular diagnosis in terms of time, cost and preservation of biomaterial for tumors with a limited amount of tumor available. The mFISH provides several advantages compared to other high-throughput technologies; however, it requires high level of expertise required to interpret complex results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federica Zito Marino
- Department of Mental and Physic Health and Preventive Medicine, Pathology Unit, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Napoli, Italy
| | - Matteo Brunelli
- Department of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Giulio Rossi
- Pathology Unit, Ospedale Santa Maria Delle Croci, Ravenna, Italy
| | | | - Anna Caliò
- Department of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Pamela Nardiello
- Section of Pathology, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence Florence, Italy
| | - Guido Martignoni
- Pathology Unit, Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Jeremy A Squire
- Departments of Genetics, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
| | - Liang Cheng
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Daniela Massi
- Section of Pathology, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence Florence, Italy
| | - Renato Franco
- Department of Mental and Physic Health and Preventive Medicine, Pathology Unit, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Napoli, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Akgul M, Williamson SR, Ertoy D, Argani P, Gupta S, Caliò A, Reuter V, Tickoo S, Al-Ahmadie HA, Netto GJ, Hes O, Hirsch MS, Delahunt B, Mehra R, Skala S, Osunkoya AO, Harik L, Rao P, Sangoi AR, Nourieh M, Zynger DL, Smith SC, Nazeer T, Gumuskaya B, Kulac I, Khani F, Tretiakova MS, Vakar-Lopez F, Barkan G, Molinié V, Verkarre V, Rao Q, Kis L, Panizo A, Farzaneh T, Magers MJ, Sanfrancesco J, Perrino C, Gondim D, Araneta R, So JS, Ro JY, Wasco M, Hameed O, Lopez-Beltran A, Samaratunga H, Wobker SE, Melamed J, Cheng L, Idrees MT. Diagnostic approach in TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional international survey. J Clin Pathol 2021; 74:291-299. [PMID: 33514585 DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2020-207372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2020] [Accepted: 01/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Transcription factor E3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-RCC) has heterogenous morphologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) features.131 pathologists with genitourinary expertise were invited in an online survey containing 23 questions assessing their experience on TFE3-RCC diagnostic work-up.Fifty (38%) participants completed the survey. 46 of 50 participants reported multiple patterns, most commonly papillary pattern (almost always 9/46, 19.5%; frequently 29/46, 63%). Large epithelioid cells with abundant cytoplasm were the most encountered cytologic feature, with either clear (almost always 10/50, 20%; frequently 34/50, 68%) or eosinophilic (almost always 4/49, 8%; frequently 28/49, 57%) cytology. Strong (3+) or diffuse (>75% of tumour cells) nuclear TFE3 IHC expression was considered diagnostic by 13/46 (28%) and 12/47 (26%) participants, respectively. Main TFE3 IHC issues were the low specificity (16/42, 38%), unreliable staining performance (15/42, 36%) and background staining (12/42, 29%). Most preferred IHC assays other than TFE3, cathepsin K and pancytokeratin were melan A (44/50, 88%), HMB45 (43/50, 86%), carbonic anhydrase IX (41/50, 82%) and CK7 (32/50, 64%). Cut-off for positive TFE3 fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) was preferably 10% (9/50, 18%), although significant variation in cut-off values was present. 23/48 (48%) participants required TFE3 FISH testing to confirm TFE3-RCC regardless of the histomorphologic and IHC assessment. 28/50 (56%) participants would request additional molecular studies other than FISH assay in selected cases, whereas 3/50 participants use additional molecular cases in all cases when TFE3-RCC is in the differential.Optimal diagnostic approach on TFE3-RCC is impacted by IHC and/or FISH assay preferences as well as their conflicting interpretation methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmut Akgul
- Pathology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York, USA
| | - Sean R Williamson
- Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Dilek Ertoy
- Department of Pathology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Pedram Argani
- Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Sounak Gupta
- Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Anna Caliò
- Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University of Verona, Verona, Veneto, Italy
| | - Victor Reuter
- Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Satish Tickoo
- Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA
| | - George J Netto
- Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Ondrej Hes
- Faculty of Medicine in Plzen, Charles University, Plzen, Czech Republic.,Medical Teaching School, University Hospital, Charles University, Plzen, Czech Republic
| | - Michelle S Hirsch
- Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Brett Delahunt
- Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wellington South, New Zealand
| | - Rohit Mehra
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Stephanie Skala
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Adeboye O Osunkoya
- Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Lara Harik
- Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Priya Rao
- Department of Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ankur R Sangoi
- Department of Pathology, El Camino Hospital, Mountain View, California, USA
| | - Maya Nourieh
- Department of Pathology, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Debra L Zynger
- Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Steven Cristopher Smith
- Department of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA
| | - Tipu Nazeer
- Pathology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York, USA
| | - Berrak Gumuskaya
- Department of Pathology, Yildirim Beyazit University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ibrahim Kulac
- Department of Pathology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Francesca Khani
- Department of Pathology, Cornell University Joan and Sanford I Weill Medical College, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Maria S Tretiakova
- Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Funda Vakar-Lopez
- Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Guliz Barkan
- Department of Pathology, Loyola University Health System, Maywood, Illinois, USA
| | - Vincent Molinié
- Pathology, University Hospital Center of Martinique, Fort-de-France, Martinique
| | - Virginie Verkarre
- Department of Pathology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou Anatomie Pathologie, Paris, Île-de-France, France
| | - Qiu Rao
- Department of Pathology, Nanjing Jinling Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Lorand Kis
- Department of Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Angel Panizo
- Department of Pathology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra Servicio de Cardiologia, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
| | - Ted Farzaneh
- Department of Pathology, Univer Irvine Healthcare, Orange County, California, USA
| | - Martin J Magers
- IHA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Joseph Sanfrancesco
- Department of Pathology, Charleston Area Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
| | - Carmen Perrino
- Department of Pathology, Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Dibson Gondim
- Department of Pathology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
| | - Ronald Araneta
- Department of Pathology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
| | - Jeffrey S So
- Department of Pathology, St Luke's Hospital, Manila, Philippines
| | - Jae Y Ro
- Department of Pathology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Matthew Wasco
- Department of Pathology, St Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Omar Hameed
- Forward Pathology Solutions, Vanderbilt University, Kansas City, Montana, USA
| | - Antonio Lopez-Beltran
- Department of Pathology and Surgery, Cordoba University Medical School, Cordoba, Spain
| | | | - Sara E Wobker
- Department of Pathology, University of North Carolina System, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Jonathan Melamed
- Department of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Liang Cheng
- Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Muhammad T Idrees
- Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| |
Collapse
|