Renal Cell Carcinoma With Chromosome 6p Amplification Including the TFEB Gene: A Novel Mechanism of Tumor Pathogenesis?

Genotype Phenotype Correlation of Renal Tumors in the Cancer Genome Atlas Database

Morphological features are critical in evaluation of renal tumors and directing molecular workup. The objective of this study was to review histomorphology of renal tumors with molecular alterations of known subtypes. Renal tumors in The Cancer Genome Atlas were reviewed to identify tumors with defining molecular alterations. Single representative digital slides and pathology reports were reviewed and morphologic features recorded. Sixty tumors were identified with molecular alterations in genes characteristic of defined renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes. Findings included the presence of both low- and high-grade histology in TFE3 rearranged RCCs, TFEB amplified RCCs, succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) mutated RCCs and RCCs with mutations in mismatch repair genes. Three ELOC mutated RCCs were identified, one of which demonstrated infiltrative features. Pseudostratification of nuclei in fumarate hydratase mutated RCCs and nuclear grooves in SDH mutated RCCs were intriguing findings not previously reported. Mucinous features were noted in NF2, KRAS, and SDH mutated and ALK rearranged tumors. Significant morphologic overlap was noted across most categories with limited clues for subclassification. Whereas the number of diagnostic entities for kidney tumors continues to increase, many of these have overlapping features, highlighting the significant role molecular characterization currently plays and will continue to play in the future.

A TFEB-Amplified Renal Cell Carcinoma with Long-Term, Complete Immunotherapy Response: Retrospective Support for the Value of Molecular Classification

Recent years have seen the recognition and establishment of numerous subtypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including adoption of an entire category of "molecularly defined renal carcinomas" in the fifth Edition of World Health Organization Classification. To add value, new diagnostic entities should be clinicopathologically distinct, or better, imply specific management and treatment angles, especially if adjunctive testing is needed for diagnosis. One such promising future treatment angle for a molecularly defined subtype, TFEB-amplified RCC, is immunotherapy, for which recent scholarship has demonstrated frequent expression of PD-L1. Herein, we report a case of metastatic TFEB-amplified RCC, where the patient experienced a long-term, complete response to PDL1-directed therapy, which had been serendipitously used years ago under a renal tumor subtype-agnostic indication. This promising experience suggests formal exploration of immunotherapy for these tumors.

Incidental Detection of TFEB-Amplified Renal Cell Carcinoma by Colocated Gene Amplification of CCND3 (6p21): A Case Report and Review of the Literature

TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which belongs to the MITF family of RCC, is characterized by genomic amplification at the 6p21.1 locus where the TFEB gene is located. The vascular endothelial growth factor A and cyclin D3 genes are also located at this same locus. When tumors lack classic morphologic features, they may be classified as "RCC not otherwise specified (NOS)." However, it is increasingly important to accurately diagnose the RCC subtype to define the patient's individual prognosis and select the subsequent therapeutic modalities, which now include targeted agents. Therefore, knowledge of the diagnostic features of TFEB-altered RCCs, such as t(6;11) RCCs and TFEB-amplified RCCs, is critical for identifying these tumors. Herein, we present an interesting case of TFEB-amplified RCC that was initially diagnosed as RCC NOS on biopsy of a renal tumor in a community practice setting with available molecular findings demonstrating CCND3 amplification. The genetic abnormality was "accidentally" detected due to the amplification of the colocated CCND3 gene at the 6p21 locus of the TFEB gene on a limited genetic sequencing panel. This case highlights the importance of molecular tests in accurately diagnosing RCC and carefully interpreting molecular findings in the context of histomorphologic features.

Genomic alterations and diagnosis of renal cancer

The application of molecular profiling has made substantial impact on the classification of urogenital tumors. Therefore, the 2022 World Health Organization incorporated the concept of molecularly defined renal tumor entities into its classification, including succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (RCC), FH-deficient RCC, TFE3-rearranged RCC, TFEB-altered RCC, ALK-rearranged RCC, ELOC-mutated RCC, and renal medullary RCC, which are characterized by SMARCB1-deficiency. This review aims to provide an overview of the most important molecular alterations in renal cancer, with a specific focus on the diagnostic value of characteristic genomic aberrations, their chromosomal localization, and associations with renal tumor subtypes. It may not yet be the time to completely shift to a molecular RCC classification, but undoubtedly, the application of molecular profiling will enhance the accuracy of renal cancer diagnosis, and ultimately guide personalized treatment strategies for patients.

Mapping the tumor microenvironment in clear cell renal carcinoma by single-cell transcriptome analysis

Introduction: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. To identify viable therapeutic targets, a comprehensive understanding of intratumoral heterogeneity is crucial. In this study, we conducted bioinformatic analysis to scrutinize single-cell RNA sequencing data of ccRCC tumor and para-tumor samples, aiming to elucidate the intratumoral heterogeneity in the ccRCC tumor microenvironment (TME). Methods: A total of 51,780 single cells from seven ccRCC tumors and five para-tumor samples were identified and grouped into 11 cell lineages using bioinformatic analysis. These lineages included tumor cells, myeloid cells, T-cells, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells, indicating a high degree of heterogeneity in the TME. Copy number variation (CNV) analysis was performed to compare CNV frequencies between tumor and normal cells. The myeloid cell population was further re-clustered into three major subgroups: monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells. Differential expression analysis, gene ontology, and gene set enrichment analysis were employed to assess inter-cluster and intra-cluster functional heterogeneity within the ccRCC TME. Results: Our findings revealed that immune cells in the TME predominantly adopted an inflammatory suppression state, promoting tumor cell growth and immune evasion. Additionally, tumor cells exhibited higher CNV frequencies compared to normal cells. The myeloid cell subgroups demonstrated distinct functional properties, with monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells displaying diverse roles in the TME. Certain immune cells exhibited pro-tumor and immunosuppressive effects, while others demonstrated antitumor and immunostimulatory properties. Conclusion: This study contributes to the understanding of intratumoral heterogeneity in the ccRCC TME and provides potential therapeutic targets for ccRCC treatment. The findings emphasize the importance of considering the diverse functional roles of immune cells in the TME for effective therapeutic interventions.

Clinical Characteristics of Molecularly Defined Renal Cell Carcinomas

Kidney tumors comprise a broad spectrum of different histopathological entities, with more than 0.4 million newly diagnosed cases each year, mostly in middle-aged and older men. Based on the description of the 2022 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), some new categories of tumor types have been added according to their specific molecular typing. However, studies on these types of RCC are still superficial, many types of these RCC currently lack accurate diagnostic standards in the clinic, and treatment protocols are largely consistent with the treatment guidelines for clear cell RCC (ccRCC), which might result in worse treatment outcomes for patients with these types of molecularly defined RCC. In this article, we conduct a narrative review of the literature published in the last 15 years on molecularly defined RCC. The purpose of this review is to summarize the clinical features and the current status of research on the detection and treatment of molecularly defined RCC.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma with focal psammomatous calcifications: a rare occurrence mimicking translocation carcinoma

AIMS

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with clear cells and psammoma-like calcifications would often raise suspicion for MITF family translocation RCC. However, we have rarely encountered tumours consistent with clear cell RCC that contain focal psammomatous calcifications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified clear cell RCCs with psammomatous calcifications from multiple institutions and performed immunohistochemistry and fluorescence and RNA in-situ hybridisation (FISH and RNA ISH). Twenty-one tumours were identified: 12 men, nine women, aged 45-83 years. Tumour size was 2.3-14.0 cm (median = 6.75 cm). Nucleolar grade was 3 (n = 14), 2 (n = 4) or 4 (n = 3). In addition to clear cell pattern, morphology included eosinophilic (n = 12), syncytial giant cell (n = 4), rhabdoid (n = 2), branched glandular (n = 1), early spindle cell (n = 1) and poorly differentiated components (n = 1). Labelling for CA9 was usually 80-100% of the tumour cells (n = 17 of 21), but was sometimes decreased in areas of eosinophilic cells (n = 4). All (19 of 19) were positive for CD10. Most (19 of 20) were positive for AMACR (variable staining = 20-100%). Staining was negative for keratin 7, although four showed rare positive cells (four of 20). Results were negative for cathepsin K (none of 19), melan A (none of 17), HMB45 (none of 17), TFE3 (none of 5), TRIM63 RNA ISH (none of 13), and TFE3 (none of 19) and TFEB rearrangements (none of 12). Seven of 19 (37%) showed chromosome 3p deletion. One (one of 19) showed trisomy 7 and 17 without papillary features.

CONCLUSIONS

Psammomatous calcifications in RCC with a clear cell pattern suggests a diagnosis of MITF family translocation RCC; however, psammomatous calcifications can rarely be found in true clear cell RCC.

TFEB-associated renal cell carcinoma: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

TFEB-associated renal cell carcinoma is very rare and belongs to the microphthalmia - associated transcription family translocation renal cell carcinoma.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Hospitalized for fever, a 29-year-old male patient had a left kidney lesion without any additional discomfort.

DIAGNOSES

Histopathological and immunohistochemical results were corresponding with TFEB renall cell carcinoma features.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical resection of the tumor was performed.

OUTCOMES

After 8 months of follow-up, no tumor recurrence was observed.

LESSONS

TFEB-associated renal cell carcinoma is rare. The diagnosis is explicit. However, the optimal treatment needs to be further explored.

Tumors masquerading as type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma: pathologists' ever-expanding differential diagnosis for a heterogeneous group of entities

Although papillary renal cell carcinoma has historically been classified as either type 1 or type 2, data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has demonstrated significant genomic heterogeneity in tumors classified as "type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma" (T2PRCC). Papillary renal cell carcinoma is expected to have a favorable clinical course compared to clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC). However, tumors with poor outcome more similar to CCRCC were included in the T2PRCC cohort studied by the TCGA. The differential diagnosis for T2PRCC includes a variety of other renal tumors, including aggressive entities such as TFE3 translocation-associated renal cell carcinoma, TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma, high-grade CCRCC, and collecting duct carcinoma. Accurate classification of these tumors is important for prognostication and selection of therapy.

A contemporary guide to chromosomal copy number profiling in the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma

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.

Clinicopathological features and prognosis of TFE3-positive renal cell carcinoma

Background

This study aimed to investigate the expression profile of TFE3 in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and the clinicopathological features as well as prognosis of TFE3-positive RCC.

Methods

Tissue sections from 796 patients with RCC were collected for immunohistochemical staining of TFE3. Molecular TFE3 rearrangement tests were also carried out on the TFE3-positive RCCs using fluorescence in situ hybridization and RNA-sequencing assays. Both clinicopathological features and follow-up information were collected for further analysis.

Results

The present study showed that 91 patients with RCC (91/796, 11.4%) were TFE3 positive expression but only 31 (31/91, 34.1%) of the patients were diagnosed with Xp11.2 translocation RCC. Further, it was found that the patients with TFE3-positive RCCs were more likely to develop lymph node and distant metastasis at diagnosis as well as presented a significantly higher WHO/ISUP nuclear grade and AJCC stage as compared with patients with TFE3-negative RCCs (p<0.01). Results of univariate and multivariate analyses showed that TFE3 positive expression was an independent prognostic factor associated with poor progression-free survival. Further, the findings of survival analysis showed that patients with positive TFE3 expression showed a shorter progression-free survival as compared with the patients with negative expression of TFE3 (p<0.001). In addition, results of the survival analysis found that there was no significant difference in progression-free survival between the Xp11.2 translocation RCC and TFE3-positive non-Xp11.2 translocation RCC groups (p=0.9607).

Conclusion

This study found that nuclear TFE3 expression is not specific to the Xp11.2 translocation RCC. Moreover, the positive TFE3 expression is associated with tumor progression and poor prognosis in patients with RCC irrespective of the presence of TFE3 translocation.

Comprehensive study of 9 novel cases of TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma: an aggressive tumor with frequent PDL1 expression

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

First described in 2014, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with TFEB amplification (6p21) is a rare molecular subgroup whose diagnosis is challenging. The prognosis and therapeutic implications remain unclear.

METHODS

We report here the clinical, histological, immunohistochemical and genetic features of 9 novel cases. The pathological and immunohistochemical features were centrally reviewed by expert uropathologists. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) confirmed the diagnosis and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was performed to determine quantitative genomic alterations. We also performed an exhaustive review of the literature and compiled our data.

RESULTS

TFEB-amplified RCC were locally advanced with initial lymph node involvement in one case and liver metastasis in another case. They were high-grade eosinophilic tumors with papillary/pseudopapillary architecture, frequent positivity for melanocytic markers and frequent PDL1 expression. FISH demonstrated high-level TFEB amplification in 6 cases. One case showed concomitant TFEB translocation. CGH analysis identified complex alterations with frequent losses of 1p, 2q, 3p, 6p, and frequent 6p and 8q gains. VEGFA co-amplification was identified in all cases with a lower level than TFEB. The prognosis was poor with five patients having lymph node or distant metastases.

CONCLUSION

TFEB-amplified RCC is a rare molecular subgroup with variable morphology whose diagnosis is confirmed by FISH analysis. The complex alterations identified by CGH are consistent with an aggressive clinical behavior. The co-amplification of VEGFA and the expression of PDL1 could suggest a potential benefit from antiangiogenics and targeted immunotherapy in combination for these aggressive tumors.

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.

Hereditary Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Hereditary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a complex and rapidly evolving topic as there is a growing body of literature regarding inherited syndromes and mutations associated with an increased risk of RCC. OBJECTIVES: We sought to systematically review 13 hereditary syndromes associated with RCC; von Hippel-Lindau Disease associated RCC (VHLRCC), BAP-1 associated clear cell RCC (BAPccRCC), Familial non-von Hippel Lindau clear cell RCC (FccRCC), Tuberous Sclerosis Complex associated RCC (TSCRCC), Birt-Hogg-Dub e ´ Syndrome associated RCC (BHDRCC), PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome associated RCC (PHTSRCC), Microphthalmia-associated Transcription Family translocation RCC (MiTFtRCC), RCC with Chromosome 6p Amplification (TFEBRCC), Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease Associated RCC (ADPKDRCC), Hereditary Leiomyomatosis associated RCC (HLRCC), Succinate Dehydrogenase RCC (SDHRCC), Hereditary Papillary RCC (HPRCC), and ALK-Rearrangement RCC (ALKRCC). RESULTS: Hereditary RCC is generally associated with early age of onset, multifocal and/or bilateral lesions, and aggressive disease course. VHLRCC, BAPccRCC, FccRCC, and certain mutations resulting in SDHRCC are associated with clear cell RCC (ccRCC). HPRCC is associated with Type 1 papillary RCC. HLRCC is associated with type 2 papillary RCC. BHDRCC is associated with Chromophobe RCC. TSCRCC, PHTSRCC, MiTFtRCC, TFEBRCC, ADPKDRCC, certain SDHRCC and ALKRCC have variable histology. CONCLUSIONS: There has been tremendous advancement in our understanding of the pathophysiology of hereditary RCC. Ongoing research will refine our understanding of hereditary RCC and its therapeutic targets.

TFE3 and TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas: an immunohistochemical panel to differentiate from common renal cell neoplasms

TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas are characterized by translocations involving TFE3 and TFEB genes. Despite the initial description of typical morphology, their histological spectrum is wide, mimicking common subtypes of renal cell tumors. Thus, the diagnosis is challenging requiring the demonstration of the gene rearrangement, usually by FISH. However, this technique is limited in most laboratories and immunohistochemical TFE3/TFEB analysis is inconsistent. We sought to identify a useful immunohistochemical panel using the most common available markers to recognize those tumors. We performed an immunohistochemical panel comparing 27 TFE3-rearranged and 10 TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas to the most common renal cell tumors (150 clear cell, 100 papillary, 50 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas, 18 clear cell papillary renal cell tumors, and 50 oncocytomas). When dealing with neoplasms characterized by cells with clear cytoplasm, CA9 is a helpful marker to exclude clear cell renal cell carcinoma. GATA3, AMACR, and CK7 are useful to rule out clear cell papillary renal cell tumor. CK7 is negative in TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma and positive in papillary renal cell carcinoma, being therefore useful in this setting. Parvalbumin and CK7/S100A1 respectively are of paramount importance when TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma resembles oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Moreover, in TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma, cathepsin K and melanogenesis markers are constantly positive, whereas TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma stains for cathepsin K in roughly half of the cases, HMB45 in 8% and Melan-A in 22%. In conclusion, since TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma may mimic several histotypes, an immunohistochemical panel to differentiate them from common renal cell tumors should include cathepsin K, CA9, CK7, and parvalbumin.

Mutation Profile Variability in the Primary Tumor and Multiple Pulmonary Metastases of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. A Review of the Literature and Analysis of Four Metastatic Cases

(1) Background: There are limited data concerning inter-tumoral and inter-metastatic heterogeneity in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC). The aim of our study was to review published data and to examine mutation profile variability in primary and multiple pulmonary metastases (PMs) in our cohort of four patients with metastatic CCRCC. (2) Methods: Four patients were enrolled in this study. The clinical characteristics, types of surgeries, histopathologic results, immunohistochemical and genetic evaluations of corresponding primary tumor and PMs, and follow-up data were recorded. (3) Results: In our series, the most commonly mutated genes were those in the canonically dysregulated VHL pathway, which were detected in both primary tumors and corresponding metastasis. There were genetic profile differences between primary and metastatic tumors, as well as among particular metastases in one patient. (4) Conclusions: CCRCC shows heterogeneity between the primary tumor and its metastasis. Such mutational changes may be responsible for suboptimal treatment outcomes in targeted therapy settings.

Diagnostic utility of one-stop fusion gene panel to detect TFE3/TFEB gene rearrangement and amplification in renal cell carcinomas

MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (MiT-RCC) harbors translocations involving the TFE3 or TFEB genes. RCC with TFEB amplification is also identified and is associated with a more aggressive clinical course. Accurate diagnosis of MiT-RCC is crucial for patient management. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the Archer FusionPlex assay for detection of MiT-RCC with TFE3 or TFEB translocations and TFEB amplifications. RNA was extracted from 49 RCC FFPE tissue samples with known TFE3/TFEB status (26 TFE3 FISH positive, 12 TFEB FISH positive, 4 TFEB amplified (1 case both split and amplified), and 8 FISH negative) using the Covaris extraction kit. Target enriched cDNA libraries were prepared using the Archer FusionPlex kit and sequenced on the Illumina NextSeq 550. We demonstrate that the age of the specimen, quality of RNA, and sequencing metrics are important for fusion detection. Fusions were identified in 20 of 21 cases less than 2 years old, and TFE3/TFEB rearrangements were detected in all cases with Fusion QC ≥ 100. The assay identified intrachromosomal inversions in two cases (TFE3-RBM10 and NONO-TFE3), usually difficult to identify by FISH assays. TFEB mRNA expression and the TFEB/TFE3 mRNA expression ratio were significantly higher in RCCs with TFEB fusion and TFEB gene amplification compared to tumors without TFEB fusion or amplification. A cutoff TFEB/TFE3 ratio of 0.5 resulted in 97.3% concordance to FISH results with no false negatives. Our study demonstrates that the FusionPlex assay successfully identifies TFE3 and TFEB fusions including intrachromosomal inversions. Age of the specimen and certain sequencing metrics are important for successful fusion detection. Furthermore, mRNA expression levels may be used for predicting cases harboring TFEB amplification, thereby streamlining testing. This assay enables accurate molecular detection of multiple subtypes of MiT-RCCs in a convenient workflow.

Translocation carcinomas of the kidney

The MiT subfamily of transcription factors includes TFE3, TFEB, TFEC, and MITF. Gene fusions involving two of these transcription factors have been well-characterized in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The TFE3-rearranged RCC (also known as Xp11 translocation RCC) was first officially recognized in the 2004 World Health Organization (WHO) renal tumor classification. The TFEB-rearranged RCC, which typically harbor a t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation which results in a MALAT1-TFEB gene fusion, were first officially recognized in the 2016 WHO renal tumor classification. These two subtypes of translocation RCC have many similarities. Both disproportionately involve young patients, although adult translocation RCC overall outnumber pediatric cases. Both often have unusual and distinctive morphologies; the TFE3-rearranged RCCs frequently have clear cells with papillary architecture and abundant psammoma bodies, while the TFEB-rearranged RCCs frequently have a biphasic appearance with both small and large epithelioid cells and nodules of basement membrane material. However, the morphology of these two neoplasms can overlap, with one mimicking the other or other more common renal neoplasms. Both of these RCC underexpress epithelial immunohistochemical markers, such as cytokeratin and epithelial membrane antigen, relative to most other RCC. Unlike other RCC, both frequently express the cysteine protease cathepsin k and often express melanocytic markers like HMB45 and Melan A. Finally, TFE3 and TFEB have overlapping functional activity as these two transcription factors frequently heterodimerize and bind to the same targets. Therefore, these two neoplasms are now grouped together under the heading of "MiT family translocation RCC." Approximately 50 renal cell carcinomas with gene fusions involving the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene have now been reported. While those with a Vinculin-ALK fusion have distinctive features (predilection to affect children with sickle cell trait and to show solid architecture with striking cytoplasmic vacuolization), other ALK-fusion RCCs have more varied clinical presentations and pathologic features. This review summarizes our current knowledge of these recently described RCC.

RBM10-TFE3 fusions: A FISH-concealed anomaly in adult renal cell carcinomas displaying a variety of morphological and genomic features: Comprehensive study of six novel cases

The accurate diagnosis of Xp11-translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in adults is challenging. TFE3 (located on chromosome X) fuses with a partner gene generally located on another chromosome. In rare cases TFE3 may fuse with a neighboring gene: RBM10. Because TFE3 false-positive immunostaining is a common pitfall in many laboratories, demonstration of the chromosomal rearrangement is required in order to ascertain the diagnosis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-that has been considered as the gold standard method-reaches its limits for detecting small Xp11 paracentric inversions. We performed a comprehensive clinical, histological and genomic study of six novel cases of RCC with RBM10-TFE3 fusion. Using FISH, TFE3 rearrangement was equivocal in one case and negative in others. RBM10-TFE3 fusion was discovered using targeted RNA sequencing (RNASeq). As all the previously reported cases (mean age: 50), the six patients were adults (mean age: 42), suggesting an epidemiologic difference between RBM10-TFE3 RCC and tumors harboring some other partner genes, such as ASPSCR1 that rather occur in children. Array-comparative genomic hybridization showed several alterations, notably a gain of 17q in four cases with papillary features and loss of 3p in one case with clear cells. Our study demonstrates that, though rare among adult cases of RCC, RBM10-TFE3 fusion is not exceptional and warrants appropriate molecular detection. Notably, it would be worthy to systemically investigate by RNASeq challenging RCC with type-2 papillary features and 17q gain.

Kidney cancer: from genes to therapy

Renal cell carcinoma incidence is rising worldwide with increasing subtype stratification by the World Health Organization. Each subtype has unique genetic alterations, cell biology changes and clinical findings. Such genetic alterations offer the potential for individualized therapeutic approaches that are rapidly progressing. This review highlights the most common subtypes of renal cell carcinoma, including both hereditary and sporadic forms, with a focus on genetic changes, clinical findings and ongoing clinical trials.

New developments in existing WHO entities and evolving molecular concepts: The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) update on renal neoplasia

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) reviewed recent advances in renal neoplasia, particularly post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, to provide an update on existing entities, including diagnostic criteria, molecular correlates, and updated nomenclature. Key prognostic features for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain WHO/ISUP grade, AJCC/pTNM stage, coagulative necrosis, and rhabdoid and sarcomatoid differentiation. Accrual of subclonal genetic alterations in clear cell RCC including SETD2, PBRM1, BAP1, loss of chromosome 14q and 9p are associated with variable prognosis, patterns of metastasis, and vulnerability to therapies. Recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines increasingly adopt immunotherapeutic agents in advanced RCC, including RCC with rhabdoid and sarcomatoid changes. Papillary RCC subtyping is no longer recommended, as WHO/ISUP grade and tumor architecture better predict outcome. New papillary RCC variants/patterns include biphasic, solid, Warthin-like, and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity. For tumors with 'borderline' features between oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC, a term "oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, not further classified" is proposed. Clear cell papillary RCC may warrant reclassification as a tumor of low malignant potential. Tubulocystic RCC should only be diagnosed when morphologically pure. MiTF family translocation RCCs exhibit varied morphologic patterns and fusion partners. TFEB-amplified RCC occurs in older patients and is associated with more aggressive behavior. Acquired cystic disease (ACD) RCC-like cysts are likely precursors of ACD-RCC. The diagnosis of renal medullary carcinoma requires a negative SMARCB1 (INI-1) expression and sickle cell trait/disease. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC) can be distinguished from papillary RCC with overlapping morphology by losses of chromosomes 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 22. MTSCC with adverse histologic features shows frequent CDKN2A/2B (9p) deletions. BRAF mutations unify the metanephric family of tumors. The term "fumarate hydratase deficient RCC" ("FH-deficient RCC") is preferred over "hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome-associated RCC". A low threshold for FH, 2SC, and SDHB immunohistochemistry is recommended in difficult to classify RCCs, particularly those with eosinophilic morphology, occurring in younger patients. Current evidence does not support existence of a unique tumor subtype occurring after chemotherapy/radiation in early childhood.

Cathepsin K: A Novel Diagnostic and Predictive Biomarker for Renal Tumors

Simple Summary

Our understanding of renal tumors has increased in the last years with the description of several novel entities. The expanding morphological spectrum complicates the pathologist’s diagnosis, often requiring immunohistochemical analysis. The role of cathepsin K immunoexpression is widened as a diagnostic tool in several renal tumors. This review describes the usefulness of cathepsin K in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms, highlighting the biological knowledge underpinning its expression. Moreover, cathepsin K seems to be a downstream marker of different genetic alterations, with a possible role as a predictive marker that may prospectively guide the development of therapeutic approaches as a molecular target.

Abstract

Cathepsin K is a papain-like cysteine protease with high matrix-degrading activity. Among several cathepsins, cathepsin K is the most potent mammalian collagenase, mainly expressed by osteoclasts. This review summarizes most of the recent findings of cathepsin K expression, highlighting its role in renal tumors for diagnostic purposes and as a potential molecular target. Indeed, cathepsin K is a recognized diagnostic tool for the identification of TFE3/TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinoma, TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, and pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma. More recently, its expression has been observed in a subgroup of eosinophilic renal neoplasms molecularly characterized by TSC/mTOR gene mutations. Interestingly, both TSC mutations or TFE3 rearrangement have been reported in pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Therefore, cathepsin K seems to be a downstream marker of TFE3/TFEB rearrangement, TFEB amplification, and mTOR pathway activation. Given the established role of mTOR inhibitors as a pharmacological option in renal cancers, cathepsin K could be of use as a predictive marker of therapy response and as a potential target. In the future, uropathologists may implement the use of cathepsin K to establish a diagnosis among renal tumors with clear cells, papillary architecture, and oncocytic features.

Multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization diagnostic applications in solid and hematological tumors

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.

Morphologic and Immunohistochemical Characteristics of Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization Confirmed TFE3-Gene Fusion Associated Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Single Institutional Cohort

TFE3-fusion associated renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-RCC) accounts for up to 5% adults and 40% of childhood RCC. Their comprehensive immunohistochemical (IHC) profile in correlation to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and their role in the diagnostic approach are not well documented because of lacking published data. FISH confirmed TFE3-RCC between years 2010 and 2020 were identified from institutional electronic database and retrospectively reviewed. Eighty-five TFE3-RCC were identified. Seventy-six of 85 (89.4%) TFE3-RCC cases had positive TFE3 expression, with diffuse and strong/moderate TFE3 expression in 45 (54.2%). Three (3.5%) TFE3-RCC had negative TFE3 expression whereas 6 (7%) cases had equivocal TFE3 expression. On the other hand, positive TFE3-IHC expression was observed in 17/29 (58.6%) TFE3-FISH negative RCC cases, although only 8 (27.5%) had diffuse and moderate/strong TFE3 expression. Diffuse and strong TFE3-IHC expression was statistically significant in predicting TFE3-FISH positivity (P<0.0001) regardless of morphologic features. After univariate and multivariate analyses, TFE3-IHC was the only parameter with significant predictive value for detecting positive TFE3-FISH (P<0.0001). On univariate analysis, sex, classic morphology, age, negative AE1/AE3 or cytokeratin 7 were not predictive of TFE3-FISH positivity. Diffuse and strong nuclear TFE3-IHC expression is significantly associated with TFE3-FISH positivity and can be used as a surrogate marker to confirm translocation associated cases. TFE3-rearranged RCCs show variable histomorphologic features and TFE3-FISH should be performed in cases presenting at a younger age or, regardless of the age, tumors with unusual morphology. Despite previous reports, negative pancytokeratin and positive cathepsin K expression may not be reliable markers for TFE3-RCC.

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome-associated renal cell carcinoma: Morphological appraisal with a comprehensive review of differential diagnoses

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) is an autosomal dominant syndrome wherein affected individuals are at risk for the development of cutaneous leiomyomas, early-onset multiple uterine leiomyomas, and an aggressive subtype of renal cell cancer. HLRCC is caused by germline mutations in the fumarate hydratase (FH) gene, which inactivates the enzyme and alters the function of the tricarboxylic acid/Krebs cycle. This article reviews the hitherto described morphologic features of HLRCC-associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and outlines the differential diagnosis and ancillary use of immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics for these tumors. The morphologic spectrum of HLRCC-associated RCC is wide and histologic features, including tumor cells with prominent nucleoli, perinucleolar halos, and multiple architectural patterns within the same tumor, which are suggestive of this diagnosis. FH immunohistochemistry in conjunction with genetic counseling and germline FH testing are the important parameters for detection of this entity. These kidney tumors warrant prompt treatment as even smaller sized lesions can demonstrate aggressive behavior and systemic oncologic treatment in metastatic disease should, if possible, be part of a clinical trial. Screening procedures in HLRCC families should preferably be evaluated in large cohorts.

A Tale of 2 Morphologies: Diagnostic Pitfalls in TFEB-Associated Renal Cell Carcinomas, Including a Novel NEAT1-TFEB Fusion

AIMS

Translocation-associated renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) have been extensively subcharacterized in recent years, such that each is largely recognized by the 2016 World Health Organization as categorical neoplastic entities in the genitourinary tract. Those belonging to the t(6;11) family of tumors classically have a fusion between TFEB and MALAT1/α, and display a particular histomorphology. Specifically, they show a biphasic population of both small and large epithelioid cells, the smaller component of which surrounds basement membrane-type material. Despite this apt description, the tumors have variable morphology and mimic other RCCs including those with TFE3 translocations. Therefore, a high degree of suspicion is required to make the correct diagnosis.

METHODS

The 2 cases described in this article were of strikingly different appearance, and initially considered consistent with other non-translocation-associated renal tumors. These included clear cell RCC (CCRCC), perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), and other eosinophilic RCCs (mainly papillary RCC type 2).

RESULTS

Using RNA sequencing techniques, they were found to harbor distinct pathogenic rearrangements involving the TFEB gene, namely, fusions with CLTC and NEAT1 (the latter partnering heretofore never reported).

CONCLUSIONS

These alterations manifested in 2 notably dissimilar lesions, underscoring the importance of including this family of carcinomas in the differential of any renal neoplasm that does not display immunophenotypic characteristics consistent with its morphology.

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.

Clinicopathologic and Molecular Analysis of the TFEB Fusion Variant Reveals New Members of TFEB Translocation Renal Cell Carcinomas (RCCs): Expanding the Genomic Spectrum

Xp11 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with different gene fusions may have different clinicopathologic features. We sought to identify variant fusions in TFEB translocation RCC. A total of 31 cases of TFEB RCCs were selected for the current study; MALAT1-TFEB fusion was identified in 25 cases (81%, 25/31) using fusion probes. The remaining 6 cases (19%, 6/31) were further analyzed by RNA sequencing and 5 of them were detected with TFEB-associated gene fusions, including 2 ACTB-TFEB, 1 EWSR1-TFEB, 1 CLTC-TFEB, and 1 potential PPP1R10-TFEB (a paracentric inversion of the TFEB gene, consistent with "negative" TFEB split FISH result, and advising a potential diagnostic pitfall in detecting TFEB gene rearrangement). Four of the 5 fusion transcripts were successfully validated by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and Sanger sequencing. Morphologically, approximately one third (29%, 9/31) of TFEB RCCs showed typical biphasic morphology. The remaining two thirds of the cases (71%, 22/31) exhibited nonspecific morphology, with nested, sheet-like, or papillary architecture, resembling other types of renal neoplasms, such as clear cell RCC, Xp11 RCC, perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa), or papillary RCC. Although cases bearing a MALAT1-TFEB fusion demonstrated variable morphologies, all 9 cases featuring typical biphasic morphology were associated with MALAT1-TFEB genotype. Accordingly, typical biphasic morphology suggests MALAT1-TFEB fusion, whereas atypical morphology did not suggest the specific type of fusion. Isolated or clustered eosinophilic cells were a common feature in TFEB RCCs, which may be a useful morphology diagnostic clue for TFEB RCCs. Clinicopathologic variables assessment showed that necrosis was the only morphologic feature that correlated with the aggressive behavior of TFEB RCC (P=0.004). In summary, our study expands the genomic spectrum and the clinicopathologic features of TFEB RCCs, and highlights the challenges of diagnosis and the importance of subtyping of this tumor by combining morphology and multiple molecular techniques.

Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers: III: Molecular Pathology of Kidney Cancer

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes are increasingly being discerned via their molecular underpinnings. Frequently this can be correlated to histologic and immunohistochemical surrogates, such that only simple targeted molecular assays, or none at all, are needed for diagnostic confirmation. In clear cell RCC, VHL mutation and 3p loss are well known; however, other genes with emerging important roles include SETD2, BAP1, and PBRM1, among others. Papillary RCC type 2 is now known to include likely several different molecular entities, such as fumarate hydratase (FH) deficient RCC. In MIT family translocation RCC, an increasing number of gene fusions are now described. Some TFE3 fusion partners, such as NONO, GRIPAP1, RBMX, and RBM10 may show a deceptive fluorescence in situ hybridization result due to the proximity of the genes on the same chromosome. FH and succinate dehydrogenase deficient RCC have implications for patient counseling due to heritable syndromes and the aggressiveness of FH-deficient RCC. Immunohistochemistry is increasingly available and helpful for recognizing both. Emerging tumor types with strong evidence for distinct diagnostic entities include eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC and TFEB/VEGFA/6p21 amplified RCC. Other emerging entities that are less clearly understood include TCEB1 mutated RCC, RCC with ALK rearrangement, renal neoplasms with mutations of TSC2 or MTOR, and RCC with fibromuscular stroma. In metastatic RCC, the role of molecular studies is not entirely defined at present, although there may be an increasing role for genomic analysis related to specific therapy pathways, such as for tyrosine kinase or MTOR inhibitors.

TFEB Expression Profiling in Renal Cell Carcinomas: Clinicopathologic Correlations

TFEB is overexpressed in TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas as well as in renal tumors with amplifications of TFEB at 6p21.1. As recent literature suggests that renal tumors with 6p21.1 amplification behave more aggressively than those with rearrangements of TFEB, we compared relative TFEB gene expression in these tumors. This study included 37 TFEB-altered tumors: 15 6p21.1-amplified and 22 TFEB-rearranged (including 5 cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas data set). TFEB status was verified using a combination of fluorescent in situ hybridization (n=27) or comprehensive molecular profiling (n=13) and digital droplet polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify TFEB mRNA expression in 6p21.1-amplified (n=9) and TFEB-rearranged renal tumors (n=19). These results were correlated with TFEB immunohistochemistry. TFEB-altered tumors had higher TFEB expression when normalized to B2M (mean: 168.9%, n=28), compared with non-TFEB-altered controls (mean: 7%, n=18, P=0.005). Interestingly, TFEB expression in tumors with rearrangements (mean: 224.7%, n=19) was higher compared with 6p21.1-amplified tumors (mean: 51.2%, n=9; P=0.06). Of note, classic biphasic morphology was only seen in TFEB-rearranged tumors and when present correlated with 6.8-fold higher TFEB expression (P=0.00004). Our results suggest that 6p21.1 amplified renal tumors show increased TFEB gene expression but not as much as t(6;11) renal tumors. These findings correlate with the less consistent/diffuse expression of downstream markers of TFEB activation (cathepsin K, melan A, HMB45) seen in the amplified neoplasms. This suggests that the aggressive biological behavior of 6p21.1 amplified renal tumors might be secondary to other genes at the 6p21.1 locus that are co-amplified, such as VEGFA and CCND3, or other genetic alterations.

Molecular Genetics of Renal Cell Tumors: A Practical Diagnostic Approach

Renal epithelial cell tumors are composed of a heterogeneous group of tumors with variable morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. A "histo-molecular" approach is now an integral part of defining renal tumors, aiming to be clinically and therapeutically pertinent. Most renal epithelial tumors including the new and emerging entities have distinct molecular and genetic features which can be detected using various methods. Most renal epithelial tumors can be diagnosed easily based on pure histologic findings with or without immunohistochemical examination. Furthermore, molecular-genetic testing can be utilized to assist in arriving at an accurate diagnosis. In this review, we presented the most current knowledge concerning molecular-genetic aspects of renal epithelial neoplasms, which potentially can be used in daily diagnostic practice.

MiT family translocation renal cell carcinomas: A 15th anniversary update

Microphthalmia (MiT) family translocation renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are a heterogeneous category of renal tumors which all express MiT transcription factors, typically from chromosomal translocation and rarely from gene amplification. This tumor family has two major subtypes [i.e., Xp11 translocation RCC and t(6;11) RCC] and several related neoplasms (i.e., TFEB amplification RCC and melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancers). Increased understanding of the clinical, pathological, molecular and prognostic heterogeneity of these tumors, since their official recognition in 2004, provides the opportunity to identify prognostic biomarkers and to understand the reasons for tumor aggression. We will review the literature from the past 15 years and highlight the need for a greater understanding of the molecular mechanisms underpinning heterogeneous tumor behavior.

MiT Family Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma: from the Early Descriptions to the Current Knowledge

The new category of MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma has been included into the World Health Organization (WHO) classification in 2016. The MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma comprises Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma harboring TFE3 gene fusions and t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma harboring TFEB gene fusion. At the beginning, they were recognized in childhood; nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that these neoplasms can occur in adults as well. In the nineties, among Xp11 renal cell carcinoma, ASPL, PRCC, and SFPQ (PSF) were the first genes recognized as partners in TFE3 rearrangement. Recently, many other genes have been identified, and a wide spectrum of morphologies has been described. For this reason, the diagnosis may be challenging based on the histology, and the differential diagnosis includes the most common renal cell neoplasms and pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney. During the last decades, many efforts have been made to identify immunohistochemical markers to reach the right diagnosis. To date, staining for PAX8, cathepsin K, and melanogenesis markers are the most useful identifiers. However, the diagnosis requires the demonstration of the chromosomal rearrangement, and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) is considered the gold standard. The outcome of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinoma is highly variable, with some patients surviving decades with indolent disease and others dying rapidly of progressive disease. Despite most instances of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma having an indolent clinical course, a few published cases demonstrate aggressive behavior. Recently, renal cell carcinomas with TFEB amplification have been described in connection with t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma. Those tumors appear to be associated with a more aggressive clinical course. For the aggressive cases of MiT family translocation carcinoma, the optimal therapy remains to be determined; however, new target therapies seem to be promising, and the search for predictive markers is mandatory.

Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Carcinoma Syndrome (HLRCC): A Contemporary Review and Practical Discussion of the Differential Diagnosis for HLRCC-Associated Renal Cell Carcinoma

CONTEXT.—

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome (HLRCC) is an uncommon disorder with germline-inactivating mutations in the fumarate hydratase ( FH) gene. The kidney cancers that develop in patients with HLRCC are often unilateral and solitary, with a potentially aggressive clinical course; morphologic identification of suspicious cases is of the utmost importance.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review classic morphologic features of HLRCC-associated renal cell carcinoma, the reported morphologic spectrum of these tumors and their mimics, and the evidence for use of immunohistochemistry and molecular testing in diagnosis of these tumors.

DATA SOURCES.—

University of Michigan cases and review of pertinent literature about HLRCC and the morphologic spectrum of HLRCC-associated renal cell carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Histologic features, such as prominent nucleoli with perinucleolar halos and multiple architectural patterns within one tumor, are suggestive of HLRCC-associated renal cell carcinoma. However, the morphologic spectrum is broad. Appropriate use of FH immunohistochemistry and referral to genetic counseling is important for detection of this syndrome.

Microphthalmia family of transcription factors associated renal cell carcinoma

The microphthalmia (MiT) subfamily of transcription factors includes TFE3, TFEB, TFEC, and MITF. In the 2016 World Health Organization classification, MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) including Xp11 tRCC and t(6;11) RCC, was newly defined as an RCC subtype. Xp11 and t(6;11) RCC are characterized by the rearrangement of the MiT transcription factors TFE3 and TFEB, respectively. Recent studies identified the fusion partner-dependent clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features in TFE3-rearranged RCC. Furthermore, RCC with TFEB amplification, melanotic MiT family translocation neoplasms, was identified may as a unique subtype of MiT family associated renal neoplasms, along with MITF associated RCC. In this review, we will collect available literature of these newly-described RCCs, analyze their clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features, and summarize their molecular and genetic evidences. We expect this review would be beneficial for the understanding of these rare subtypes of RCCs, and eventually promote clinical management strategies.

VEGFA amplification/increased gene copy number and VEGFA mRNA expression in renal cell carcinoma with TFEB gene alterations

Amplification of vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) has been recently reported in TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas regardless the level of TFEB amplification. We sought to determine VEGFA amplification by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and VEGFA mRNA expression by in situ hybridization (RNAscope 2.5) in a series of 10 renal cell carcinomas with TFEB gene alterations, either amplification and/or rearrangement (t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma). TFEB gene rearrangement was demonstrated in eight cases, whereas the remaining two cases showed a high level of TFEB (> 10 copies of fluorescent signals) gene amplification without evidence of rearrangement. Among the eight t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas (TFEB-rearranged cases), one case displayed a high level of TFEB gene amplification and two showed increased TFEB gene copy number (3-4 copies of fluorescent signals). Those three cases behaved aggressively. By FISH, VEGFA was amplified in all three cases with TFEB amplification and increased VEGFA gene copy number was observed in the two aggressive cases t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas with an overlapping increased number of TFEB fluorescent signals. Overall, VEGFA mRNA expression was observed in 8 of 10 cases (80%); of these 8 cases, 3 cases showed high-level TFEB amplification, one case showed TFEB rearrangement with increased TFEB gene copy number, whereas four showed TFEB gene rearrangement without increased copy number. In summary, VEGFA amplification/increased gene copy number and VEGFA mRNA expression occur in TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, but also in a subset of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma demonstrating aggressive behavior, and in unamplified conventional t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma suggesting VEGFA as potential therapeutic target in these neoplasms even in the absence of TFEB amplification. We finally propose that all the renal tumors showing morphological characteristics suggesting t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma and all unclassified renal cell carcinomas, either high grade or low grade, should immunohistochemically be evaluated for cathepsin K and/or Melan-A and if one of them is positive, tested for TFEB gene alteration and VEGFA gene amplification.

Histological and molecular characterization of TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System recognizes microphthalmia transcription factor (MiT) family translocation carcinomas as a separate entity among renal cell carcinomas. TFE3 and transcription factor EB (TFEB) are members of the MiT family for which chromosomal rearrangements have been associated with renal cell carcinoma formation. TFEB translocation renal cell carcinoma is a rare tumor harboring a t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation. Recently, renal cell carcinomas with TFEB amplification have been identified. TFEB amplified renal cell carcinomas have to be distinguished from TFEB-translocated renal cancer, because they may demonstrate a more aggressive behavior. Herein, we present a TFEB-translocated and a TFEB-amplified carcinoma cases and describe their distinct histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular characteristics. In addition, we review conventional morphology, immunophenotype, genetic background, and clinical outcome of TFEB-rearranged RCCs in the literature, with a special emphasis on important differential diagnoses and the diagnostic approach.

New entities, new technologies, new findings: A review of the cytologic features of recently established subtypes of renal cell carcinoma

Several new renal tumor types with distinctive pathologic, epidemiologic, and genetic signatures have recently been adopted in the fourth edition of the World Health Organization classification. In succeeding years, the cytologic features of most of these new types have been described, adding to the trend of increasing diagnostic accuracy for most common renal cell carcinoma subtypes and the important diagnostic role of cytologic sampling in the management and personalization of therapy. The current article reviews the cytologic findings from these recently established renal cell carcinoma subtypes. Emphasis is placed on cytologic diagnostic clues, confirmatory ancillary testing, salient differential diagnoses, and challenges that can be encountered in an attempt to render accurate interpretations in small samples.

High grade infiltrative adenocarcinomas of renal cell origin: New insights into classification, morphology, and molecular pathogenesis

Collecting duct carcinoma was described over 30 years ago as a renal tumor, based in the medullary collecting system, with tubulopapillary morphology, prominent infiltrative growth, and stromal desmoplasia. While diagnostic workup has always emphasized exclusion of upper tract urothelial carcinoma and metastatic adenocarcinoma to the kidney, the molecular era of renal cell carcinoma classification has enabled recognition of and provided tools for diagnosis of new entities in this morphologic differential. In this review, we consider these developments, with emphasis on renal medullary carcinoma, closely related renal cell carcinoma, unclassified with medullary phenotype, and fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. Integration of ancillary studies with suggestive patterns of morphology is emphasized for practical implementation in contemporary diagnosis, and several emerging tumor types in the morphologic differential are presented.

Hemangioblastoma in Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Cancer Syndrome: a phenotypic overlap between VHL and HLRCC Syndromes

Hemangioblastomas are rare vascularized central nervous system tumors, which can occur sporadically or be associated with von Hippel Lindau Syndrome. The pathogenesis of hemangioblastomas in von Hippel Lindau Syndrome is proposed to involve a pseudohypoxic intracellular state induced by dysregulation of hypoxia inducible factor alpha due to the absence of von Hippel Lindau protein complex mediated destruction. Dysregulation of fumarate hydratase, a tricarboxylic acid cycle enzyme, occurs in Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Cancer Syndrome due to germline fumarate hydratase gene mutations, and also results in oncogenesis via hypoxia inducible factor alpha dysregulation. We present a case study of hemangioblastoma occurrence in a Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Cancer Syndrome patient and propose it as possible evidence of a phenotypic overlap between von Hippel Lindau and Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Cancer Syndromes due to their overlapping role in the biochemical regulation of hypoxia inducible factor alpha.

t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma: a study of seven cases including two with aggressive behavior, and utility of CD68 (PG-M1) in the differential diagnosis with pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma

Renal cell carcinomas with t(6;11) chromosome translocation involving the TFEB gene are indolent neoplasms which often occur in young patients. In this study, we report seven cases of renal cell carcinoma with TFEB rearrangement, two of whom had histologically proven metastasis. Patients (4F, 3M) ranged in age from 19 to 55 years (mean 37). One patient developed paratracheal and pleural metastases 24 months after surgery and died of disease after 46 months; another one recurred with neoplastic nodules in the perinephric fat and pelvic soft tissue. Histologically, either cytological or architectural appearance was peculiar in each case whereas one tumor displayed the typical biphasic morphology. By immunohistochemistry, all tumors labelled for cathepsin K, Melan-A and CD68 (KP1 clone). HMB45 and PAX8 staining were detected in six of seven tumors. All tumors were negative for CD68 (PG-M1 clone), CKAE1-AE3, CK7, CAIX, and AMACR. Seven pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipomas, used as control, were positive for cathepsin K, melanocytic markers, and CD68 (PG-M1 and KP1) and negative for PAX8. Fluorescence in situ hybridization results showed the presence of TFEB gene translocation in all t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas with a high frequency of split TFEB fluorescent signals (mean 74%). In the primary and metastatic samples of the two aggressive tumors, increased gene copy number was observed (3-5 fluorescent signals per neoplastic nuclei) with a concomitant increased number of CEP6. Review of the literature revealed older age and larger tumor size as correlating with aggressive behavior in these neoplasms. In conclusion, we present the clinical, morphological and molecular features of seven t(6;11) renal cell carcinomas, two with histologically demonstrated metastasis. We report the high frequency of split signals by FISH in tumors with t(6;11) chromosomal rearrangement and the occurrence of TFEB gene copy number gains in the aggressive cases, analyzing either the primary or metastatic tumor. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of CD68 (PG-M1) immunohistochemical staining in distinguishing t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma from pure epithelioid PEComa/epithelioid angiomyolipoma.

[TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma. A case report and review of the literature]

Renal carcinomas associated with translocation of transcription factors of the MiT/TFE family include, according to the latest World Health Organization classification, carcinomas with Xp11 translocation that involve the TFE3 gene and those with translocation t(6;11)(p21;q12) that affect the TFEB gene. Each one of these sub-types have well-defined clinicopathological and molecular characteristics. Currently, progress in molecular techniques has led to the description of neoplasms with molecular changes in these same genes but with alterations different to translocation. Thus, recently, cases have been published of TFEB-amplified renal carcinomas with prognoses that vary from cases associated with translocation and could therefore represent a new entity. We present a case of TFEB-amplified renal carcinoma with a full description of the clinicopathological characteristics and an updated revision of these neoplasms.

Novel gene fusion of PRCC-MITF defines a new member of MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma: clinicopathological analysis and detection of the gene fusion by RNA sequencing and FISH

AIMS

MITF, TFE3, TFEB and TFEC belong to the same microphthalmia-associated transcription factor family (MiT). Two transcription factors in this family have been identified in two unusual types of renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Xp11 translocation RCC harbouring TFE3 gene fusions and t(6;11) RCC harbouring a MALAT1-TFEB gene fusion. The 2016 World Health Organisation classification of renal neoplasia grouped these two neoplasms together under the category of MiT family translocation RCC. RCCs associated with the other two MiT family members, MITF and TFEC, have rarely been reported. Herein, we identify a case of MITF translocation RCC with the novel PRCC-MITF gene fusion by RNA sequencing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Histological examination of the present tumour showed typical features of MiT family translocation RCCs, overlapping with Xp11 translocation RCC and t(6;11) RCC. However, this tumour showed negative results in TFE3 and TFEB immunochemistry and split fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH) assays. The other MiT family members, MITF and TFEC, were tested further immunochemically and also showed negative results. RNA sequencing and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction confirmed the presence of a PRCC-MITF gene fusion: a fusion of PRCC exon 5 to MITF exon 4. We then developed FISH assays covering MITF break-apart probes and PRCC-MITF fusion probes to detect the MITF gene rearrangement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study both proves the recurring existence of MITF translocation RCC and expands the genotype spectrum of MiT family translocation RCCs.

Detection of 6 TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas and 25 renal cell carcinomas with MITF translocations: systematic morphologic analysis of 85 cases evaluated by clinical TFE3 and TFEB FISH assays

Renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations demonstrate a wide morphologic spectrum, highlighting the need to consider these entities within the differential diagnosis of renal tumors encountered in clinical practice. Herein, we describe our experience with application of clinical fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays for detection of TFE3 and TFEB gene aberrations from 85 consecutive renal cell carcinoma cases submitted to our genitourinary FISH service. Results from 170 FISH assays performed on these tumors were correlated with available clinicopathologic findings. Ninety-eight percent of renal tumors submitted for FISH evaluation were from adult patients. Thirty-one (37%) tumors were confirmed to demonstrate MITF aberrations (21 TFE3 translocation, 4 TFEB translocation, and 6 TFEB amplification cases). Overall, renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations demonstrated morphologic features overlapping with clear cell, papillary, or clear cell papillary renal cell carcinomas. Renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations were significantly more likely to demonstrate dual (eosinophilic and clear) cytoplasmic tones (P=0.030), biphasic TFEB translocation renal cell carcinoma-like morphology (P=0.002), psammomatous calcifications (P=0.002), and nuclear pseudoinclusions (P=0.001) than renal cell carcinomas without MITF aberrations. Notably, 7/9 (78%) renal cell carcinomas exhibiting subnuclear clearing and linear nuclear array (6 of which showed high World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology nucleolar grade) demonstrated TFE3 translocation, an association that was statistically significant when compared with renal cell carcinomas without MITF aberrations (P=0.009). In this cohort comprising consecutive cases, TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas were more commonly identified than renal cell carcinomas with TFEB translocations, and four (67%) of these previously unreported TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas demonstrated oncocytic and papillary features with a high World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology nucleolar grade. In summary, TFE3 and TFEB FISH evaluation aids in identification and accurate classification of renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations, including TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, which may demonstrate aggressive behavior.