LMP2, a novel immunohistochemical marker to distinguish renal oncocytoma from the eosinophilic variant of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

Low grade oncocytic tumors of the kidney: a clinically relevant approach for the workup and accurate diagnosis

Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma were accepted as unique renal tumors in the late 1990s. Since their formal description, criteria for diagnosis have evolved and additional distinct tumor subtypes originally considered as one these two entities are now recognized. The last two decades have witnessed unprecedented interest in the spectrum of low grade oncocytic renal neoplasms in three specific areas: (1) histologic characterization of tumors with overlapping morphologic features between oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma; (2) description of potentially unique entities within this spectrum, such as eosinophilic vacuolated tumor and low-grade oncocytic tumor; and (3) better appreciation of the association between a subset of low grade oncocytic tumors and hereditary renal neoplasia. While this important work has been academically rewarding, the proposal of several histologic entities with overlapping morphologic and immunophenotypic features (which may require esoteric adjunctive immunohistochemical and/or molecular techniques for confirmation) has created frustration in the diagnostic pathology and urology community as information evolves regarding classification within this spectrum of renal neoplasia. Pathologists, including genitourinary subspecialists, are often uncertain as to the "best practice" diagnostic approach to such tumors. In this review, we present a practical clinically relevant algorithmic approach to classifying tumors within the low grade oncocytic family of renal neoplasia, including a proposal for compressing terminology for evolving categories where appropriate without sacrificing prognostic relevance.

Diagnostic utility of amylase α-1A, MOC 31, and CD 82 in renal oncocytoma versus chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

Objective

Renal oncocytoma (RO) and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) originate from the same cell origin, that is, the intercalated cells of the collecting duct.^[1] In most cases, there are clear morphologic differences between RO and ChRCC; however, in some instances, overlapping features may be encountered and the differentiation between the two entities becomes difficult.^[2] Several immunohistochemical markers with different expression patterns in ChRCC and RO have been described to rule out this dilemma.

Materials and Methods

About 47 primary renal neoplasms that had been diagnosed as RO or ChRCC were submitted for immunohistochemical staining of amylase α-1A (AMY1A), MOC 31, and CD 82. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy have been analyzed.

Results

AMY1A positivity was observed in all RO cases in our work with 91.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity in the diagnosis of RO. The PPV of its expression was (100%) and NPV (97.2%) with a diagnostic accuracy of 97.9%. A significant high expression of MOC 31 was observed in ChRCC compared to its expression in RO with a statistical significance (P < 0.001). In addition, we obtained 82.9% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity of MOC 31 expression in the diagnosis of ChRCC. The positive predictive value (PPV) was (96.7%), negative predictive value (NPV) (64.7%) with diagnostic accuracy (85.1%). In our studied cases, we detected positive immunoexpression of CD 82 in 10 cases (83.3%) of ChRCC. However, it was lost in all RO cases (100%). CD 82 sensitivity and specificity in differentiating ChRCC from RO were 100% and 83.3%, respectively.

Conclusion

We propose MOC 31 and CD 82 as negative immunostains for RO, as these markers are commonly expressed in ChRCC. In conjunction with AMY1A strong immunopositivity in RO cases, we provide a triple panel of biomarkers (AMY1A, MOC 31, and CD 82) for the distinction between RO and ChRCC.

Hypophysitis Secondary to Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte-Associated Protein 4 Blockade: Insights into Pathogenesis from an Autopsy Series

Hypophysitis that develops in cancer patients treated with monoclonal antibodies blocking cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4; an inhibitory molecule classically expressed on T cells) is now reported at an incidence of approximately 10%. Its pathogenesis is unknown, in part because no pathologic examination of the pituitary gland has been reported to date. We analyzed at autopsy the pituitary glands of six cancer patients treated with CTLA-4 blockade, one with clinical and pathologic evidence of hypophysitis, one with mild lymphocytic infiltration in the pituitary gland but no clinical signs of hypophysitis, and four with normal pituitary structure and function. CTLA-4 antigen was expressed by pituitary endocrine cells in all patients but at different levels. The highest levels were found in the patient who had clinical and pathologic evidence of severe hypophysitis. This high pituitary CTLA-4 expression was associated with T-cell infiltration and IgG-dependent complement fixation and phagocytosis, immune reactions that induced an extensive destruction of the adenohypophyseal architecture. Pituitary CTLA-4 expression was confirmed in a validation group of 37 surgical pituitary adenomas and 11 normal pituitary glands. The study suggests that administration of CTLA-4 blocking antibodies to patients who express high levels of CTLA-4 antigen in the pituitary can cause an aggressive (necrotizing) form of hypophysitis through type IV (T-cell dependent) and type II (IgG dependent) immune mechanisms.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of immunohistochemical biomarkers that differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma

BACKGROUND

Numerous immunohistochemical (IHC) biomarkers have been employed to aid in the difficult differentiation between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) and renal oncocytoma (RO). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was carried out to summarise and analyse the evidence for discriminatory IHC biomarkers to differentiate the two entities.

METHODS

PubMed database was used to identify relevant literature. Primary end point was comparison of positive immunostaining of the biomarkers in chRCC and RO, with extracted data used to calculate OR and 95% CI and statistical I(2) test of heterogeneity for multiple studies.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine manuscripts were available for review. Data extracted were subjected to quantitative meta-analysis. Ten most effective biomarkers (OR of chRCC/RO and CI) are: amylase α1A (n=129, OR=0.001, 95% CI 0.0001 to 0.019); Wnt-5a (n=38, OR=0.0076, 95% CI 0.0004 to 0.015); FXYD2 (n=57, OR=130, 95% CI 14.2 to 1192.3); ankyrin-repeated protein with a proline-rich region (ARPP) (n=25, OR=0.0054, 95% CI 0.0002 to 0.12); cluster of differentiation 63 (CD63) (n=62, diffuse (chRCC) vs apical/polar (RO) stain pattern); transforming growth factor β 1 (TGFβ1) (n=34, membranous (chRCC) vs cytoplasmic (RO)); cytokeratin 7 (CK7) (11 studies, n=448, pooled OR=44.22, 95% CI 22.52 to 86.64, I(2)=15%); S100A1 (4 studies, n=124, pooled OR=0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.03, I(2)=0%); caveolin-1 (2 studies, n=102, pooled OR=32.95, 95% CI 3.67 to 296.1, I(2)=70%) and claudin-7 (3 studies, n=89, pooled OR=24.7, 95% CI 6.28 to 97.1, I(2)=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a panel of IHC biomarkers of amylase α1A, Wnt-5a, FXYD2, ARPP, CD63, TGFβ1, CK7, S100A1, caveolin-1 and claudin-7 to aid in the differentiation of chRCC and RO.

Effect of Xianziyizhen Recipe Capsule on PGI2-PPARδ Signaling Pathway in Embryo Implantation Dysfunction Mice

PROBLEM

We investigated the effect of Xianziyizhen recipe capsule (XRC), a kidney-tonifying herb, on the PGI2-PPARδ signaling pathway at the maternal-fetal interface in embryo implantation dysfunction (EID) mice.

METHOD OF STUDY

Intragastric administration of Progynova (estradiol) or XRC was performed in EID mouse model, following experimental induction of kidney deficiency by co-treatment with chemotherapy drug hydroxyurea and antiprogesterone mifepristone. The PPARδ and IL-11 mRNA expression in endometrium were detected by real-time relative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Further, the protein expression of COX-2, PGI2, MMP-9, and TIMP-3 was detected in endometrial glandular epithelium and in stromal cells by immunohistochemical (IHC) assay.

RESULTS

The results showed that hydroxyurea and mifepristone-induced EID were associated with significantly lower PPARδ and IL-11 mRNA levels in endometrium and reduced COX-2, PGI2, MMP-9, and TIMP-3 levels in endometrial glandular epithelium, compared with normal controls. However, XRC and Progynova treatment reversed these effects, leading to significant increases in PPARδ and IL-11 mRNA expression, and COX-2, PGI2, MMP-9 and TIMP-3 protein levels, when compared with the levels observed in EID mice.

CONCLUSION

These results strongly suggested that XRC is beneficial in EID treatment and that XRC may mediate its effects through regulation of the PGI2-PPARδ signaling pathway.

TGF-β1 expression in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma

Distinguishing renal oncocytoma (RO) from the eosinophilic variant of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) under the light microscope is a common diagnostic problem. Our recent research has shown significant difference between the presence of tumor fibrous capsule in ChRCCs and ROs. Transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) is a potent cytokine involved in regulating a number of cellular processes. Two main purposes of this research were to investigate whether the TGF-β1 staining could be related to the presence of tumor fibrous capsule and if it could be used in the differential diagnosis between ChRCC and RO. We investigated 34 cases: 16 ChRCCs (8 eosinophilic and 8 classic) and 18 ROs. All available slides of each tumor, routinely stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) were first analyzed to note the presence of tumor fibrous capsule. One paraffin embedded tissue block matching the representative H&E slide was selected for the immunohistochemical analysis. TGF-β1 expression was analyzed semiquantitatively in the tumor tissue, the tumor fibrous capsule, if present and the peritumoral renal parenchyma. Intensity of TGF-β1 expression was weaker in ChRCCs than the one observed in ROs (P<0.05). The type of reaction in ChRCCs was predominantly membranous unlike in ROs, which exhibited a predominantly cytoplasmic reaction (P<0.05). Moreover, none of the ROs showed membranous type of reaction for TGF-β1. In the group of ChRCCs, tumors with capsule had statistically significant higher quantity of TGF-β1 expression in tumor tissue and in peritumoral renal parenchyma compared to the tumors without capsule (P<0.05). Our results showed different types of TGF-β1 expression in ChRCCs and ROs: ChRCCs had predominantly membranous type of reaction, and ROs predominantly cytoplasmic. Furthermore, ChRCCs with capsule had statistically significant higher quantity of TGF-β1 expression in tumor tissue and in peritumoral renal parenchyma compared to the tumors without capsule. Based on these findings we can speculate that it could be possible that TGF-β1 plays a role in the formation of fibrous capsule in ChRCCs.

Amylase α-1A (AMY1A): a novel immunohistochemical marker to differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from benign oncocytoma

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) and oncocytoma present with a perplexing overlap of morphologic and immunohistochemical features. ChRCC have deletions in the 1p21.1 region including the amylase α-1A gene (AMY1A). No such deletions are found in oncocytoma. Instead, oncocytomas shared other deletions on chromosome 1: 1p31.3, 1q25.2, and 1q44. We performed AMY1A immunostaining on 75 oncocytomas (57 tissue microarray [TMA] cores, 18 whole slides) and 54 ChRCCs (20 TMA cores, 34 whole slides). Staining was assessed using the H-score method. The intensity was graded as follows: no staining=0, weak=1, moderate=2, and strong=3. The AMY1A immunostain preferentially stained the distal tubules and collecting ducts of normal kidney. All oncocytomas (100%) expressed AMY1A with an H-score that varied from 100 to 300 (mean 205). Mild to moderate heterogeneity in staining intensity was noted within a given oncocytoma. For oncocytomas, 87% (65/75) cases had H-scores of at least 120 with a mean score of 221. Notably, the 13% (10/75) of oncocytoma cases that had an H-score of 100 were derived from the TMA. A total of 87% (47/54) of the ChRCC cases were negative for the AMY1A immunostain. Of the ChRCC cases, 4% (2/54) showed very weak cytoplasmic staining (H-score of 70 each), which was less than the lowest H-score of oncocytoma cases. All 5 cases of ChRCC, which showed an H-score of 100 or more, were referred to as eosinophilic variants of ChRCC. Three of these 5 cases showed a very nondescript, diffuse staining of the cytoplasm. Two of these 5 cases showed an H-score of 130. We think that as the staining pattern of these 2 cases is similar to that of oncocytoma, they should be put in a category of renal oncocytic neoplasms favoring oncocytoma. This result shows that AMY1A staining could be very helpful in further classifying even a subset of the eosinophilic variants of ChRCC. The difference between ChRCC and oncocytoma was statistically significant (χ test, P<0.0001). All cases of clear cell RCC and papillary RCC were negative for AMY1A expression. Overall, sensitivity and specificity of AMY1A staining for oncocytoma was 100% (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.00) and 96.75% (95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.99), respectively. Similarly, the sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing oncocytoma from ChRCC was 100% (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.00) and 90.74% (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.97), respectively. These data show that the novel marker AMY1A can be of great diagnostic utility when trying to differentiate ChRCC (classic and eosinophilic variant) and oncocytoma.