Expression of CD10 and Cytokeratins in Ovarian and Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma

Clear Cell Carcinomas of Müllerian Type and Rete Testis Origin Presenting as Scrotal Masses: A Study of Seven Cases

Ovarian-type epithelial tumors involving the testis and paratestis are rare, with clear cell carcinomas (CCC) one of the least frequent. We report our experience with 4 müllerian-type (MT) CCCs presenting as testicular/scrotal masses and arising in the paratestis (n=2) and seminal vesicle (n=2; well supported in 1 case and likely in the other). In addition, we document 3 cases of papillary CCC exclusively within the rete testis (RTCCC) and seminiferous tubules and differing from the MT tumors. The patients with MTCCC were 24 to 85 years old (median, 42 y), and 2 had metastases at presentation. The 2 originating in the paratestis were associated with other MT tumors, an endometrioid borderline tumor and a papillary serous borderline tumor. The other 2 MTCCCs likely involved the testis via extension from seminal vesicle primaries through the vasa deferentia. All MTCCCs showed typical features, including tubules, simple papillae with hyalinized cores, and solid nests of polygonal clear cells with occasional hobnail features. Both paratesticular primaries showed sarcomatoid foci with tumor-associated neutrophilic infiltrates. The 3 RTCCCs presented in 54-, 57-, and 60-year-old men as testicular masses; they showed intrarete arborizing papillary growth with nonhyalinized fibrous cores and piled-up, solid foci, lacked hobnail cells, and expressed carbonic anhydrase IX (2/2) and CD10 (2/2) but not CA125, unlike the MTCCCs. On follow-up, 2 patients with MTCCC died of metastatic tumor (4 and 13.5 mo), a third developed ileal and retroperitoneal metastases at 13 months; and the fourth died at 13.5 months of unspecified cause. Follow-up of 2 patients with RTCCCs showed 1 disease free at 8 months and another alive with unknown disease status at 13 years. We conclude that CCCs involving the testis may either be of MT with often aggressive courses or show some features of renal tumors, with confinement to the rete testis and indolent behavior.

Modeling the Diversity of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer through Ten Novel Well Characterized Cell Lines Covering Multiple Subtypes of the Disease

Cancer cell lines are amongst the most important pre-clinical models. In the context of epithelial ovarian cancer, a highly heterogeneous disease with diverse subtypes, it is paramount to study a wide panel of models in order to draw a representative picture of the disease. As this lethal gynaecological malignancy has seen little improvement in overall survival in the last decade, it is all the more pressing to support future research with robust and diverse study models. Here, we describe ten novel spontaneously immortalized patient-derived ovarian cancer cell lines, detailing their respective mutational profiles and gene/biomarker expression patterns, as well as their in vitro and in vivo growth characteristics. Eight of the cell lines were classified as high-grade serous, while two were determined to be of the rarer mucinous and clear cell subtypes, respectively. Each of the ten cell lines presents a panel of characteristics reflective of diverse clinically relevant phenomena, including chemotherapeutic resistance, metastatic potential, and subtype-associated mutations and gene/protein expression profiles. Importantly, four cell lines formed subcutaneous tumors in mice, a key characteristic for pre-clinical drug testing. Our work thus contributes significantly to the available models for the study of ovarian cancer, supplying additional tools to better understand this complex disease.

Fairly rare clear cell adenocarcinoma mimicking liver cancer: a case report

Background

Clear cell carcinoma commonly occurs in the ovary and kidney, and clear cell cholangiocarcinoma was rarely reported. Differential diagnosis which the origin of the tumor located on the liver surface is intrahepatic or extrahepatic was difficult. Herein, we report a case of clear cell adenocarcinoma mimicking liver cancer.

Case presentation

This was a 55-year-old female who had the tumor with cystic component in the liver. She was performed hepatectomy and diagnosed as clear cell adenocarcinoma. Histopathological evaluation revealed intra-cystic clear cell adenocarcinoma. The tumor has ductal structure including mucin and atypical nuclear with clear cytoplasm. The tumor was separated from the liver and the diaphragm. The expression of Pax8 was positive, but the expression CK7 and HNF1β was positive and that of CD10 and ER was negative, which indicate that the tumor has the feature of clear cell carcinoma of ovary, not renal cell carcinoma nor cholangiocarcinoma.

Conclusions

Our experience with this patient suggests that this tumor may originate from the endometriosis onto the diaphragm from the detailed results of immunohistochemical staining.

Clear cell carcinomas of the ovary and kidney: clarity through genomics

Clear cell ovarian carcinoma (CCOC) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) both feature clear cytoplasm, owing to the accumulation of cytoplasmic glycogen. Genomic studies have demonstrated several mutational similarities between these two diseases, including frequent alterations in the chromatin remodelling SWI-SNF and cellular proliferation phosphoinositide 3-kinase-mammalian target of rapamycin pathways, as well as a shared hypoxia-like mRNA expression signature. Although many targeted treatment options have been approved for advanced-stage ccRCC, CCOC patients are still treated with conventional platinum and taxane chemotherapy, to which they are resistant. To determine the extent of similarity between these malignancies, we performed unsupervised clustering of mRNA expression data from these cancers. This review highlights the similarities and differences between these two clear cell carcinomas to facilitate knowledge translation within future research efforts. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evaluating prognosis by CK7 differentiating renal cell carcinomas from oncocytomas can be used as a promising tool for optimizing diagnosis strategies

Renal Oncocytomas and renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) share a common phenotype. This makes it very difficult to differentiate between the two tumors. Here, this study was to confirmed and expanded the findings that CK7 as a promising tool differentiate RCC from Oncocytomas across various geographic regions. A systematic search of databases was carried out and other relevant articles were also identified. Then the meta-analyses were conducted for 1,711 participants according to the standard guidelines. A total of 21 studies were included on the basis of inclusion criteria. CK7 by IHC was significantly associated with increased diagnosis of RCC (OR=10.64; 95% CI, 7.44-15.23; P=0.0001). Subgroup-analysis showed that findings didn't substantially change when only Caucasians or Asians (OR=10.58; 95% CI, 6.97-16.07; P<0.01 or OR=10.83; 95% CI, 5.39-21.74; P=0.004) were considered. There was also no significant publication bias observed. Our findings provide further evidences that the expression of CK7 contribute to differentiate RCC from Oncocytomas. CK7 protein overexpression was found in RCC, low expression in any of Oncocytomas. CK7 is potentially an important renal tumor marker.

Validation of 34betaE12 immunoexpression in clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as a sensitive biomarker

Clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (CCPRCC) is a recently recognised neoplasm with a broad spectrum of morphological characteristics, thus representing a challenging differential diagnosis, especially with the low malignant potential multicystic renal cell neoplasms and clear cell renal cell carcinoma. We selected 14 cases of CCPRCC with a wide spectrum of morphological features diagnosed on morphology and CK7 immunoreactivity and analysed them using a panel of immunohistochemical markers, focusing on 34βE12 and related CKs 1,5,10 and 14 and several molecular analyses such as fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH), array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH), VHL methylation, VHL and TCEB1 sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Twelve of 13 (92%) CCPRCC tumours were positive for 34βE12. One tumour without 3p alteration by FISH revealed VHL mutation and 3p deletion at aCGH; thus, it was re-classified as clear cell RCC. We concluded that: (1) immunohistochemical expression of CK7 is necessary for diagnostic purposes, but may not be sufficient to identify CCPRCC, while 34βE12, in part due to the presence of CK14 antigen expression, can be extremely useful for the recognition of this tumour; and (2) further molecular analysis of chromosome 3p should be considered to support of CCPRCC diagnosis, when FISH analysis does not evidence the common loss of chromosome 3p.

Role of immunohistochemistry in diagnosing renal neoplasms: when is it really useful?

CONTEXT

With the refinement of molecular and histologic classifications of renal neoplasms and the availability of more-effective molecular targeted therapy for specific renal neoplasms, immunohistochemical techniques will play an increasingly important role in the diagnosis of renal neoplasm. During the past few decades, many markers have been evaluated for their role in the diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of treatment for renal neoplasms. The number of useful markers in our routine practice continues to increase. The challenge will be to choose among them and to decide in which situations immunohistochemistry will be truly useful.

OBJECTIVES

To review the diagnostic utility of molecular markers for renal neoplasms and common diagnostic scenarios that call for immunohistochemistry in routine practice.

DATA SOURCES

This review is based on published literature and personal experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the most important and useful markers for the diagnosis of renal neoplasm include cytokeratins, vimentin, PAX2, PAX8, RCC marker, CD10, E-cadherin, kidney-specific cadherin, parvalbumin, claudin-7, claudin-8, α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase, CD117, TFE3, thrombomodulin, uroplakin III, p63, CD57, and carbonic anhydrase IX. Each marker has its diagnostic role in a specific diagnostic setting. The common diagnostic situations that call for immunohistochemical staining are differential diagnoses of renal versus nonrenal neoplasms, histologic subtyping of renal cell carcinoma, diagnosis of rare primary renal neoplasms, diagnosis of renal neoplasms in small core-biopsy specimens, diagnosis of possible metastatic renal carcinomas, and less frequently, molecular prognostication.

Immunohistochemical diagnosis of renal neoplasms

CONTEXT

Histologic diagnosis of renal neoplasm is usually straightforward by routine light microscopy. However, immunomarkers may be essential in several contexts, including differentiating renal from nonrenal neoplasms, subtyping of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and diagnosing rare types of renal neoplasms or metastatic RCC in small biopsy specimens.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review of the diagnostic utility of immunomarkers for renal neoplasms.

DESIGN

This review is based on published literature and personal experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The following markers may have diagnostic utility in various diagnostic contexts: cytokeratins, vimentin, α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase, carbonic anhydrase IX, PAX2, PAX8, RCC marker, CD10, E-cadherin, kidney-specific cadherin, parvalbumin, claudin-7, claudin-8, S100A1, CD82, CD117, TFE3, thrombomodulin, uroplakin III, p63, and S100P. Cytokeratins are uniformly expressed by RCC, albeit in a somewhat limited amount in some subtypes, requiring broad-spectrum anti-CK antibodies, including both low- and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins. PAX2 and PAX8 are sensitive and relatively specific markers for renal neoplasm, regardless of subtype. CD10 and RCC marker are sensitive to renal cell neoplasms derived from proximal tubules, including clear cell and papillary RCCs. Kidney-specific cadherin, parvalbumin, claudin-7, and claudin-8 are sensitive markers for renal neoplasms from distal portions of the nephron, including chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma. CK7 and α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase are sensitive markers for papillary RCC; TFE3 expression is essential in confirming the diagnosis of Xp11 translocation RCC. The potentially difficult differential diagnosis between chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma may be facilitated by S100A1 and CD82. Thrombomodulin, uroplakin III, p63, and S100P are useful markers for urothelial carcinoma. Together with high-molecular-weight cytokeratins, PAX2, and PAX8, they can help differentiate renal pelvic urothelial carcinoma from collecting duct RCC. A sensitive marker for sarcomatoid RCC is still not available. Immunomarkers are most often used for diagnosing metastatic RCC. Compared with primary RCC, expression of the above-mentioned markers is often less frequent and less diffuse in the metastatic setting. Recognizing the variable sensitivity and specificity of these markers, it is important to include at least CD10, RCC marker, PAX2, and PAX8 in the diagnostic panel.

CD10 Expression in Pure Stromal and Sex Cord-Stromal Tumors of the Ovary

CD10 has been recently advocated as a good immunohistochemical marker for endometrial stromal tumors. Metastatic endometrial stromal tumors to the ovary and primary endometrioid stromal sarcomas may show overlapping histological features with pure stromal and sex cord-stromal tumors (SCSTs). We investigated CD10 expression in a large series of pure stromal and SCSTs of the ovary to ascertain whether CD10 may aid in this differential diagnosis. Archival material from 11 fibromas, 10 thecomas, 10 sclerosing stromal tumors (SSTs), 10 adult granulosa cell tumors (AGCTs), 4 luteinized AGCTs, 9 juvenile granulosa cell tumors (JGCTs), 9 Sertoli cell tumors, 9 Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors, 11 sex cord tumors with annular tubules, 10 steroid cell tumors (StCTs), and 8 fibrosarcomas of the ovary were immunostained for CD10. The percentage of cells stained (<5%, 5%-39%, 40%-75%, and >75%) and intensity of staining (1+, 2+, 3+) were evaluated. CD10 was expressed in 7 of 10 thecomas (4 with 5%-75% and mostly 1+), 9 of 10 SSTs (7 with 5%-39% + cells, mostly 1+), 9 of 10 AGCTs (<5%-39%, four 1+, five 2+), 1 of 4 luteinized AGCTs (<5% and 1+), 8 of 9 JGCTs (mostly <5% to 39% and +1), 4 of 9 Sertoli cell tumors (either focal or >75% with variable intensity), 4 of 9 Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors (mostly <10% with variable staining), with the Leydig cells being positive in only 1 tumor (1+ and <5%), and 7 of 10 StCTs (4 tumors with more than 75% + cells, from 1+ to 3+). All fibromas, all but 1 fibrosarcoma (<5% and 1+), and all sex cord tumors with annular tubules were CD10 negative. CD10 expression was frequently seen in StCTs, SSTs, and thecomas of the ovary, although the latter 2 categories usually showed only faint immunoreactivity. In conclusion the frequency and intensity of CD10 immunoreactivity in pure stromal and sex cord-stromal ovarian tumors are low and contrast with the typical strong and diffuse immunostaining seen in endometrial stromal tumors; however, faint CD10 positivity is consistent with the diagnosis of ovarian SCST. Steroid cell tumors are often positive for CD10, but these tumors do not pose problems in differential diagnosis with endometrial stromal tumors. CD10 may play a useful role in aiding the differential between endometrial stromal tumors in the ovary and SCST and stromal tumors.