Oncocytoma Can be Differentiated From its Renal Cell Carcinoma Mimics by a Panel of Markers: An Automated Tissue Microarray Study

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.

[Concordances and predictors of biopsies in renal tumors]

AIM

Evaluate the concordance between the renal lesions biopsy's histology and the final histology of the surgical specimen according to histological subtype, and search for predictive factors of non-concordance.

MATERIAL

We performed a monocentric retrospective study that included 156 patients suffering from a renal tumor that benefited a lesion biopsy before surgical treatment. Sensibility and specificity of the renal lesion's biopsy for histological diagnostic of the different renal tumors where calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight renal tumor biopsies were realized between 2001 and 2016. One hundred and forty-three renal cell carcinoma were found on the surgical piece, 135 were diagnosed on prior biopsy. Global concordance rate was 88%. For the establishment of the nuclear Fuhrmann grade, the concordance rate (low vs. high grade) was 72.9%. The cohort was divided into 2 groups according to the existence (group 1, n=139) or the absence (group 2, n=19) of concordance. Group 1 and 2 differed by the predominance of men in group 1 (66% vs. 37%, P=0.013), distance between the sinus and the tumor above 4mm (65% vs. 42%, P=0.05).

CONCLUSION

In renal tumor care, renal biopsy is a reliable testing. However, some factors most likely linked to the tumor anatomy (intra-sinusal tumor) and their histological composition were involved in the lack of non-contribution to the diagnosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Caspase 3 as a Novel Marker to Distinguish Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma from Oncocytoma

Despite advances in our understanding of the biology of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) and renal oncocytoma (RO), the differential diagnosis among these tumors remains one of the most problematic in renal pathology. Today, CK7 is the most recommended marker to distinguish these entities, however it appears insufficiently accurate by itself. This study aimed to find an easily accessible IHC stain that might out-compete CK7 in this field. Expressions of CK7, cyclin D1, p16, survivin, CD138, Ki-67 and caspase 3 (CASP3) were analyzed in a total of 27 cases (20 ROs and 7 ChRCCs). Immunoreactivity was assessed based on a combined score of the extent and intensity of staining. Compared to RO, a higher percentage of the total ChRCCs stained positive for CK7 (67% vs. 22%, respectively) and CASP3 (86% vs. 25%) (P < 0.005). The differences in staining with cyclin D1, p16, survivin, CD138 and Ki-67 turned out to be statistically insignificant in differentiating ChRCC from RO. CASP3 is a promising marker in distinguishing ChRCC from RO and may represent an alternative for CK7. Cyclin D1, p16, survivin, CD138 and Ki-67 cannot be used to distinguish these neoplasms.

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.

Biomarkers of Renal Tumors: the Current State and Clinical Perspectives

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) ranks the first death rate among the urogenital tumors, whereas its incidence follows the incidences of prostate and bladder cancer. The diagnosis of RCC at early stages allows immediately undertaking appropriate treatment, which significantly increases patients' survival rate. Early and accurate diagnosis avoids inadequate treatment, provides the disease progression forecast, and permits to apply more efficient therapy. Unfortunately, the small renal tumors are usually asymptomatic resulting in the late diagnosis and, therefore, low efficacy of treatment. Thus, sensible and preventive biomarkers are essential for early RCC detection and monitoring of its progression. So far, many attempts were performed aimed at recognizing novel informative kidney tumor biomarkers applicable for early detection of the disease and possessing prognostic and predictive capabilities. This review summarizes recent advances in renal tumor biomarkers recognition, their diagnostic and prognostic values, and clinical feasibility.

Percutaneous biopsy for risk stratification of renal masses

The increased use of abdominal imaging has led to identification of more patients with incidental renal masses, and renal mass biopsy (RMB) has become a popular method to evaluate unknown renal masses prior to definitive treatment. Pathologic data obtained from biopsy may be used to guide decisions for treatment and may include the presence or absence of malignant tumor, renal cell cancer subtype, tumor grade and the presence of other aggressive pathologic features. However, prior to using RMB for risk stratification, it is important to understand whether RMB findings are equivalent to pathologic analysis of surgical specimens and to identify any potential limitations of this approach. This review outlines the advantages and limitations of the current studies that evaluate RMB as a guide for treatment decision in patients with unknown renal masses. In multiple series, RMB has demonstrated low morbidity and a theoretical reduction in cost, if patients with benign tumors are identified from biopsy and can avoid subsequent treatment. However, when considering the routine use of RMB for risk stratification, it is important to note that biopsy may underestimate risk in some patients by undergrading, understaging or failing to identify aggressive tumor features. Future studies should focus on developing treatment algorithms that integrate RMB to identify the optimal use in risk stratification of patients with unknown renal masses.

Endogenous biotin expression in renal and testicular tumours and literature review

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to examine endogenous biotin levels in tumour specimens collected from patients with renal and testicular tumours and compare them to the surrounding non-neoplastic surgical margin.

METHODS

Frozen samples were obtained from the Ontario Tumour Bank. Renal and testicular tumour tissue were included in this study. Normal tissue from the negative surgical margins of each tumour served as a control. Biotin detection in tissue specimens was determined using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

RESULTS

Specimens collected from 56 patients (36 men and 20 women) were included in this study. Histopathology of the 52 renal tumours included 31 (60%) conventional type RCC, 5 (10%) chromophobe RCC, 5 (10%) papillary RCC, 1 (2%) oncocytoma and 10 (19%) upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UC). The 4 testicular tumours included 1 seminomatous (25%) germ cell tumour and 3 (75%) non seminomatous germ cell tumours.

CONCLUSION

No biotin signal was perceived in all tested tumour samples. Endogenous biotin expression was detected in the matching non-neoplastic surgical margin of tested renal tissues. This lack of staining may prove to be a valuable tool in future studies.

Renal tumors: diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers

The International Society of Urological Pathology convened a consensus conference on renal cancer, preceded by an online survey, to address issues relating to the diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia. In this report, the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and assessment of prognosis of renal tumors is addressed. In particular we focused upon the use of immunohistochemical markers and the approach to specific differential diagnostic scenarios. We enquired whether cytogenetic and molecular tools were applied in practice and asked for views on the perceived prognostic role of biomarkers. Both the survey and conference voting results demonstrated a high degree of consensus in participants' responses regarding prognostic/predictive markers and molecular techniques, whereas it was apparent that biomarkers for these purposes remained outside the diagnostic realm pending clinical validation. Although no individual antibody or panel of antibodies reached consensus for classifying renal tumors, or for confirming renal metastatic disease, it was noted from the online survey that 87% of respondents used immunohistochemistry to subtype renal tumors sometimes or occasionally, and a majority (87%) used immunohistochemical markers (Pax 2 or Pax 8, renal cell carcinoma [RCC] marker, panel of pan-CK, CK7, vimentin, and CD10) in confirming the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. There was consensus that immunohistochemistry should be used for histologic subtyping and applied before reaching a diagnosis of unclassified RCC. At the conference, there was consensus that TFE3 and TFEB analysis ought to be requested when RCC was diagnosed in a young patient or when histologic appearances were suggestive of the translocation subtype; whereas Pax 2 and/or Pax 8 were considered to be the most useful markers in the diagnosis of a renal primary.

Differentiation of oncocytoma from chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC): can novel molecular biomarkers help solve an old problem?

Standard treatment of renal neoplasms remains surgical resection, and nephrectomy for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) still has the best chance of cure with excellent long-term results. For smaller renal masses, especially stage T1a tumours less than 4 cm, nephron-sparing surgery is often employed. However, small incidentally detected renal masses pose an important diagnostic dilemma as a proportion of them may be benign and could be managed conservatively. Renal oncocytoma is one such lesion that may pose little risk to a patient if managed with routine surveillance rather than surgery. Additionally, lower-risk RCC, such as small chromophobe RCC, may be managed in a similar way, although with more caution than the renal oncocytomas (RO). The ability to differentiate ROs from chromophobe RCCs, and from other RCCs with a greater chance of metastasis, would guide the physician and patient towards the most appropriate management, whether nephron-sparing surgical resection or conservative surveillance. Consistent accurate diagnosis of ROs is likely to remain elusive until modern molecular biomarkers are identified and applied routinely. This review focuses on the differentiation of renal oncocytomas and chromophobe RCCs. It summarises the history, epidemiology and clinical presentation of the renal neoplasms, explains the diagnostic dilemma, and describes the value, or not, of current molecular markers that are in development to assist in diagnosis of the renal neoplasms.

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a morphologic and immunohistochemical study of 45 cases

The aim of this study was to evaluate the morphological spectrum of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (CRCC) and diagnostic utility of a panel of three immunohistochemical stains. All cases of CRCC reported between 2002 and 2012 in the Section of Histopathology, Aga Khan University Hospital, were retrieved. A total of 45 cases were identified. Slides were reviewed and immunohistochemical stains (CK7, CD117, and vimentin) were performed. Ages ranged from 18 to 90 years (mean, 48.5 years). Male-to-female ratio was 0.8:1. The tumor was located in the left kidney in 24 patients and the right kidney in 20 patients. The tumor size ranged from 3.5 to 22 cm (mean 10 cm). Histologically, 4 were classic, 22 were eosinophilic, 16 were mixed, and 3 were sarcomatoid type. Morphologic patterns included broad alveolar, solid, nested, tubular, tubulocystic, trabecular, papillary, and microglandular. Binucleation and perinuclear halos were seen in all cases. Nuclear grooves and pseudoinclusions were seen in 17 and 6 cases, respectively. Multinucleated cells were seen in 19 cases. Mitoses ranged from 1 to 11/10 HPFs (mean 3/10 HPFs). Hyalinized stroma was seen in 38 cases and calcification in 26 cases. Necrosis was seen in 18 cases. Palisading of smaller cells around the broad alveolar pattern was noted in 5 cases. The Furhman's nuclear grade was I (11), II (26), III (5), and IV (3). Hale's colloidal iron was positive in all cases. Immunohistochemical stain CK7 and CD117 were positive in 100% and 95.5% of cases respectively. Vimentin was negative in all cases, except in the sarcomatoid areas of 3 cases. In conclusion, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma has certain unique morphological features and immunohistochemical profile which help to distinguish it from conventional renal cell carcinoma and oncocytoma. We identified nuclear pseudoinclusions, microglandular pattern and palisading of smaller cells, which have not been reported earlier.

Androgen deprivation induces senescence characteristics in prostate cancer cells in vitro and in vivo

BACKGROUND

The treatment of non-localized prostate cancer involves androgen deprivation (AD) therapy which results in tumor regression. Apoptosis has been implicated in the tumor response to AD, but constitutes a small fraction of the total tumor at any time. Cellular senescence is a response to sub-lethal stress in which cells are persistently growth arrested and develop distinct morphological and biochemical characteristics. The occurrence of senescence in prostate tumor tissue after AD therapy has not previously been investigated.

METHODS

Phenotypic and molecular characteristics of senescence were examined in models of androgen-sensitive prostate cancer after AD and compared with androgen-intact controls.

RESULTS

In vitro in LNCaP cells, AD induced elevated senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SA-β-gal) staining, decreased proliferation, and increased flow cytometric side scatter while minimally affecting cell viability. The increased expression of the senescence-related proteins Glb1, the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27(Kip1) and chromatin-regulating heterochromatin protein 1γ (HP1γ) were detected in LNCaP cells after AD in vitro by immunoblot and immunofluorescence microscopy. In mice bearing LuCaP xenograft tumors in vivo, surgical castration similarly increased SA-β-gal staining, increased expression of p27(Kip1) and HP1γ, and decreased expression of the proliferation marker KI-67, with minimal induction of apoptosis identified by detection of cleaved caspase 3 and TUNEL. Immunohistochemical analysis of human prostate tumors removed after AD shows similar induction of Glb1, HP1γ and decreased KI-67.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that AD induces characteristics consistent with cellular senescence in androgen-sensitive prostate cancer cells. This finding may explain incomplete tumor regression in response to AD.

Underexpression of hepatocyte nuclear factor-1β in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

AIMS

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) is an uncommon malignant renal neoplasm with a generally indolent clinical behaviour. Previous studies revealed biallelic inactivation of the hepatocyte nuclear factor-1β (HNF1β) gene in several patients with ChRCC. The aims of this study were to determine HNF1β expression in renal neoplasms and the potential of HNF1β as a diagnostic marker for ChRCC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed immunohistochemical staining of 79 samples taken from patients with primary renal neoplasm [19 renal oncocytomas, 18 ChRCCs, 24 clear cell renal cell carcinomas (CCRCCs), and 18 papillary renal cell carcinomas]. HNF1β was underexpressed in 16 of 18 cases of ChRCC (88.9%). By contrast, HNF1β expression was preserved in the majority of renal oncocytoma (94.7%, 18/19) and CCRCC (95.8%, 23/24) cases. The combined use of HNF1β and cytokeratin 7 (CK7) further increased the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity; the profile of HNF1β positivity and CK7 negativity was not visible in any ChRCC sample, but was common in both renal oncocytoma (94.7%, 18/19) and CCRCC (91.7%, 22/24) samples.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that a lack of HNF1β expression might play an important role in the pathogenesis of ChRCC, and may serve as a good diagnostic marker for this neoplasm.

The contemporary role of renal mass biopsy in the management of small renal tumors

The selective use of percutaneous biopsy for diagnosis in renal masses is a relatively uncommon approach when compared to the management of other solid neoplasms. With recent advancements in imaging techniques and their widespread use, the incidental discovery of asymptomatic, small renal masses (SRM) is on the rise and a substantial percentage of these SRM are benign. Recent advances in diagnostics have significantly improved accuracy rates of renal mass biopsy (RMB), making it a potentially powerful tool in the management of SRM. In this review, we will discuss the current management of SRM, problems with the traditional view of RMB, improvements in the diagnostic power of RMB, cost-effectiveness of RMB, and risks associated with RMB. RMB may offer important information enabling treating clinicians to better risk-stratify patients and ultimately provide a more personalized treatment approach for SRM.

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.

Molecular pathology of renal oncocytoma: a review

Differentiating renal oncocytoma from its renal cell carcinoma (RCC) mimics, particularly chromophobe RCC, can be difficult, especially when limited tissue is available for evaluation and requires sophisticated microscopic, ultrastructural and immunohistochemical evaluation. In this review, the relevant literature has been reviewed, and supporting data obtained by applying modern microarray-based technologies are discussed with a focus on molecular pathology of renal oncocytoma. The high resolution whole-genome DNA-microarray based analyses excluded with all certainty the occurrence of small specific alterations. Renal oncocytomas are characterized by variable chromosomal patterns. The number of genes selected by global gene expression analyses and their usefulness in the diagnostic pathology based on immunohistochemical evaluation is far below the expectations. The conflicting staining patterns, together with the poor specificity of proposed antibodies, leads us to believe that these candidate immunomarkers might not help in the separation of these tumors. Applying DNA based tools might help in the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma with uncertain histology. However, only the combination of all available techniques could give reliable information.

CD 9 and vimentin distinguish clear cell from chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

Background

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) can usually be distinguished by histologic characteristics. Occasionally, diagnosis proves challenging and diagnostic difficulty will likely increase as needle biopsies of renal lesions become more common.

Methods

To identify markers that aid in differentiating ccRCC from chRCC, we used gene expression profiles to identify candidate markers that correlate with histology. 39 antisera and antibodies, including 35 for transcripts identified from gene expression profiling, were evaluated. Promising markers were tested on a tissue microarray (TMA) containing 428 renal neoplasms. Strength of staining of each core on the TMA was formally scored and the distribution of staining across different types of renal neoplasms was analyzed.

Results

Based on results from initial immunohistochemical staining of multitissue titer arrays, 23 of the antisera and antibodies were selected for staining of the TMA. For 7 of these markers, strength of staining of each core on the TMA was formally scored. Vimentin (positive in ccRCC) and CD9 (positive in chRCC) best distinguished ccRCC from chRCC. The combination of vimentin negativity and CD9 positivity was found to distinguish chRCC from ccRCC with a sensitivity of 100.0% and a specificity of 95.2%.

Conclusion

Based on gene expression analysis, we identify CD9 and vimentin as candidate markers for distinguishing between ccRCC and chRCC. In difficult cases and particularly when the amount of diagnostic tissue is limited, vimentin and CD9 staining could serve as a useful adjunct in the differential diagnosis of ccRCC and chRCC.

EUS-guided FNA aspiration of kidney masses: a multicenter U.S. experience

BACKGROUND

Tissue sampling of renal lesions is traditionally performed with percutaneous US or CT guidance. To date, only 3 known cases of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of a renal mass have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a multicenter experience with the indications, yield, and complications from attempted EUS-FNA of a kidney mass.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTING

Six tertiary referral hospitals in the United States.

PATIENTS

Consecutive subjects undergoing attempted EUS-FNA of a kidney mass. Endosonographers at 15 other teaching hospitals were contacted regarding EUS findings and follow-up of any EUS-guided renal biopsies previously attempted or considered at that institution.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS-FNA of a kidney mass.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Biopsy indications, yield, diagnosis, and complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen procedures in 15 patients (9 men; median age 67 years) were performed at 6 (37%) of 16 hospitals (Indiana University plus 15 other hospitals). Kidney masses (median diameter 32 mm; range 11-60 mm) were located in the upper (n = 12) and lower (n = 3) poles of the left (n = 10) and right (n = 5) kidneys, respectively. Initial mass detection was by previous imaging in 13 (87%) patients or by EUS in 2 (13%) patients. Results of EUS-FNA (median 3 passes; range 2-4 passes) in 13 (87%) procedures were diagnostic of (n = 7) or highly suspicious for (n = 1) renal cell carcinoma (RCC), atypical cells (n = 2), oncocytoma (n = 1), benign cyst (n = 1), and nondiagnostic (n = 1). No complications were encountered. Surgical resection confirmed RCC in 7 patients in whom preoperative EUS-FNA demonstrated RCC (n = 5) or oncocytoma (n = 1) or was not performed (n = 1).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective series, small number of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA of renal masses is rarely performed at the U.S. teaching hospitals surveyed. This technique appears safe and feasible and should be considered when results would affect patient management.