Surgical pathology of cystic renal cell carcinomas: is there an overestimation of malignancy?

Cystic Features in Renal Epithelial Neoplasms and Their Increasing Clinical and Pathologic Significance

Most cystic renal tumors after resection (Boniak IIF to IV cysts) have an indolent course despite the significantly higher proportion of malignant [ie, renal cell carcinoma (RCC)] diagnosis. Most cystic renal tumors have clear cell histology that include cystic clear cell RCC and multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (MCNLMP). There is growing evidence to suggest that MCNLMP, cystic clear cell RCC, and noncystic clear cell RCC form a cystic-to-solid biological spectrum with MCNLMP representing the most indolent form and with cystic clear cell RCC behaving better than noncystic (solid) clear cell RCC. Extensively (>75%) cystic clear cell RCC also has an excellent outcome similar to MCNLMP stressing the need to reevaluate the histologic criteria that separate these 2 cystic clear cell tumors. Other tumors with clear cells that can be extensively cystic such as the recently reclassified noncancerous clear cell papillary renal tumor and the newly described MED15::TFE3 RCC also have indolent course and may mimic MCNLMP. Cystic features occur also in renal tumors with nonclear cell histology including tumors capable of metastasis such as acquired cystic disease-associated, tubulocystic, fumarate hydratase-deficient, and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCCs. Cystic imaging presentation of some renal tumors such as papillary RCC can be attributed in part to pseudocystic necrosis and hemorrhage. It is important to know that tubulocystic RCC may have a lower Bosniak class presentation that overlaps with benign renal cysts (Bosniak I to IIF) that are managed conservatively. This review highlights the cystic renal tumors with clear cell and nonclear cell morphologies including some novel RCC subtypes that may have cystic features. The presence of cystic features and their extent may aid in the classification and prognostication of renal neoplasms underscoring its increasing importance in the pathologic diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia.

Comparison of survival between unilocular cystic and purely solid renal cell carcinoma

To evaluate clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of unilocular cystic renal cell carcinoma (ucRCC) compared with purely solid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC), and to evaluate the oncologic aggressiveness of ucRCC. The relevant data of 957 patients with sporadic unilateral renal cell carcinoma (RCC) underwent surgical treatment in 2 institutions from Jan 2014 to Oct 2018 were obtained. We excluded multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (MCRNLMP), RCC with multilocular cysts and necrotic RCC. 74 ucRCCs were identified by pathology reports. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and eventually selected 144 sRCCs. The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes were compared properly. After PSM, age, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and postoperative Chronic Kidney Disease grade were not significantly different. Both overall survival and progression-free survival of ucRCC were significantly better than sRCC by the log-rank test. Twenty-five cases of sRCCs were in the pT3 or pT4 stage, while no pT3 or pT4 tumors were found in ucRCCs. Fuhrman grade and lymphatic metastasis were found to be significant prognostic factors for the overall survival of ucRCC. Unilocular cystic RCC has a lower Fuhrman grade and pathological stage and a better prognosis compared with solid RCC. Patients with ucRCC still probably have lymphatic metastasis at surgery and may have postoperative metastasis, which is different from MCRNLMP. We recommend that the diagnosis of ucRCC should be reflected in pathology report. Different subtype of cystic RCC should be taken into consideration in counseling and management.

Updates in Grading of Renal Cell Carcinomas Beyond Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends grading of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and papillary RCC using the WHO/International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade, which is primarily based on nuclear features. As the spectrum of RCC continues to evolve, with more recently described subtypes in the past decade, literature evidence on grading these subtypes is limited or not available for some tumor types. Herein, we outline a pragmatic approach to the topic of grading RCC, dividing the contemporarily described RCC subtypes into 7 categories based on the potential clinical applicability of grading as a useful prognostic parameter: (1) RCC subtypes that are reasonably validated and recommended for WHO/ISUP grading; (2) RCC subtypes where WHO/ISUP is not applicable; (3) RCC subtypes where WHO/ISUP grading is potentially clinically useful; (4) inherently aggressive RCC subtypes where histologic classification itself confers an aggressive biologic potential; (5) renal epithelial tumors where WHO/ISUP grading provides potentially misleading prognostic implication; (6) renal epithelial neoplasms where low WHO/ISUP grade features are a prerequisite for accurate histologic classification; and (7) renal epithelial neoplasms with no or limited data on grading or incomplete understanding of the biologic potential. Our aim in outlining this approach is 2-fold: (a) identify the gaps in understanding and application of grading in RCC subtypes so that researchers in the field may perform additional studies on the basis of which the important pathologic function of assignment of grade may be recommended to be performed as a meaningful exercise across a wider spectrum of RCC; and (b) to provide guidance in the interim to surgical pathologists in terms of providing clinically useful grading information in RCC based on currently available clinicopathologic information.

Renal Cell Tumors: Molecular Findings Reshaping Clinico-pathological Practice

Over the past 20 years, the number of subtypes of renal epithelial cell neoplasia has grown. This growth has resulted from detailed histological and immunohistochemical characterization of these tumors and their correlation with clinical outcomes. Distinctive molecular phenotypes have validated the unique nature of many of these tumors. This growth of unique renal neoplasms has continued after the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours. A consequence is that both the pathologists who diagnose the tumors and the clinicians who care for these patients are confronted with a bewildering array of renal cell carcinoma variants. Many of these variants have important clinical features, i.e. familial or syndromic associations, genomics alterations that can be targeted with systemic therapy, and benignancy of tumors previously classified as carcinomas. Our goal in the review is to provide a practical guide to help recognize these variants, based on small and distinct sets of histological features and limited numbers of immunohistochemical stains, supplemented, as necessary, with molecular features.