Diverse Fusion Patterns and Heterogeneous Clinicopathologic Features of Renal Cell Carcinoma With t(6;11) Translocation

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.

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.

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.

Integrative clinical and molecular characterization of translocation renal cell carcinoma

Translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a poorly characterized subtype of kidney cancer driven by MiT/TFE gene fusions. Here, we define the landmarks of tRCC through an integrative analysis of 152 patients with tRCC identified across genomic, clinical trial, and retrospective cohorts. Most tRCCs harbor few somatic alterations apart from MiT/TFE fusions and homozygous deletions at chromosome 9p21.3 (19.2% of cases). Transcriptionally, tRCCs display a heightened NRF2-driven antioxidant response that is associated with resistance to targeted therapies. Consistently, we find that outcomes for patients with tRCC treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) are worse than those treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Using multiparametric immunofluorescence, we find that the tumors are infiltrated with CD8⁺ T cells, though the T cells harbor an exhaustion immunophenotype distinct from that of clear cell RCC. Our findings comprehensively define the clinical and molecular features of tRCC and may inspire new therapeutic hypotheses.

TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinoma. A clinicopathologic and molecular study of 13 cases. Tumors harboring MALAT1-TFEB, ACTB-TFEB, and the novel NEAT1-TFEB translocations constantly express PDL1

Renal cell carcinomas with t(6;11) chromosome translocation has been classically characterized by the rearrangement of the TFEB gene, located on chromosome 6, and MALAT1 gene, located on chromosome 11. Recently, a few other genes have been described as fusion partners in TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinomas. Although most of TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinomas have an indolent behavior, in the rare cases of advanced metastatic disease targeted therapy and predictive markers remain lacking. In the present study, we collected 13 TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinomas, confirmed by FISH, analyzing their morphology and exploring the novel gene partners. Looking for predictive markers, we have also performed PDL1 immunohistochemical analysis by using four different assays (E1L3N, 22C3, SP142, and SP263). MALAT1 gene rearrangement has been found in ten tumors, five cases showing classical biphasic morphology with "rosettes", five cases without "rosettes" mimicking other renal cell carcinomas or epithelioid angiomyolipoma/pure epithelioid PEComa. We identified two different partner genes, ACTB and NEAT1, the latter previously unreported and occurring in a tumor with an unusual solid and cystic appearance. In both cases, the "rosettes" were absent. In one case no gene partner was identified. Overall, in 12 of 13 TFEB-rearranged renal cell carcinomas staining for PDL1 SP263 was observed, whereas the other antibodies were less reliable or more difficult to interpret. In conclusion, we described the third case of ACTB-TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinoma and a novel NEAT1-TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinoma, both without the distinctive biphasic morphology typical of t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma. Finally, PDL1 SP263 was constantly expressed in TFEB rearranged renal cell carcinoma with possible clinical benefit which requires further investigations.

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.

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.

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.

The role of TFEB in tumor cell autophagy: Diagnostic and therapeutic opportunities

Autophagy is a conserved "self-eating" recycling process which removes aggregated or misfolded proteins, or defective organelles, to maintain cellular hemostasis. In the autophagy-lysosome pathway (ALP), clearance of unwanted debris and materials occurs through the generation of the autophagosome, a complex of double-membrane bounded vesicles that form around cytosolic cargos and catabolize their contents by fusion to lysosomes. In tumors, autophagy has dichotomous functions via preventing tumor initiation but promoting tumor progression. The basic helix-loop-helix leucine zipper transcription factor EB (TFEB) activates the promoters of genes encoding for proteins, which participate in this cellular degradative system by regulating lysosomal biogenesis, lysosomal acidification, lysosomal exocytosis and autophagy. In humans, disturbances of ALP are related to various pathological conditions. Recently, TFEB dysregulation was found to have a crucial pathogenic role in different tumors by modulating tumor cell autophagy. Notably, in renal cell carcinomas, different TFEB gene fusions were reported to promote oncogenic features. In this review, we discuss the role of TFEB in human cancers with a special focus on potential diagnostic and therapeutic implications.

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.

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.

The molecular characterization and therapeutic strategies of papillary renal cell carcinoma

Introduction: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is an important subtype of kidney cancer with a problematic pathological classification and highly variable clinical behavior. In this review, we summarize the current progression on pRCC in molecular level. Our findings highlight the need for molecular markers to accurately subtype pRCC and may lead to the development of more targeted agents and better patient stratification in clinical trials for pRCC. Areas covered: This review highlights the need for molecular markers to accurately subtype PRCC and may lead to the development of more targeted agents and better patient stratification in clinical trials for pRCC. Expert commentary: There are mainly two subtypes of pRCC based on histology. However, little is known about the genetic characterization of the sporadic forms of pRCC and there are currently no standard forms of therapy for patients with advanced disease. Both MET inhibitors and immunotherapy may be effective in advanced pRCC treatment. Therefore, understanding the molecular basis of pRCC and identifying the main goal of treatment is crucial for the selection of the best strategy.

Emerging roles and regulation of MiT/TFE transcriptional factors

The MiT/TFE transcription factors play a pivotal role in the regulation of autophagy and lysosomal biogenesis. The subcellular localization and activity of MiT/TFE proteins are primarily regulated through phosphorylation. And the phosphorylated protein is retained in the cytoplasm and subsequently translocates to the nucleus upon dephosphorylation, where it stimulates the expression of hundreds of genes, leading to lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy induction. The transcription factor-mediated lysosome-to-nucleus signaling can be directly controlled by several signaling molecules involved in the mTORC1, PKC, and AKT pathways. MiT/TFE family members have attracted much attention owing to their intracellular clearance of pathogenic factors in numerous diseases. Recently, multiple studies have also revealed the MiT/TFE proteins as master regulators of cellular metabolic reprogramming, converging on autophagic and lysosomal function and playing a critical role in cancer, suggesting that novel therapeutic strategies could be based on the modulation of MiT/TFE family member activity. Here, we present an overview of the latest research on MiT/TFE transcriptional factors and their potential mechanisms in cancer.

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.

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.

Renal Cell Tumors: Understanding Their Molecular Pathological Epidemiology and the 2016 WHO Classification

Accumulating evidence suggests that renal cell tumors represent a group of histologically and molecularly heterogeneous diseases, even within the same histological subtype. In accordance with the increased understanding of the morphological, immunohistochemical, molecular, and epidemiological characteristics of renal cell tumors, the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of renal cell tumors has been modified. This review provides perspectives on both new and current subtypes of renal cell tumors, as well as on the emerging/provisional renal cell carcinomas in the new 2016 WHO classification, which focuses on features of their molecular pathological epidemiology. The WHO classification will require additional revisions to enable the classification of renal cell tumors as clinically meaningful subtypes and provide a better understanding of the unique characteristics of renal cell tumors.

Translocation Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Update on Clinicopathological and Molecular Features

Microphthalmia-associated transcription (MiT) family translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) comprises Xp11 tRCC and t(6;11) RCC. Due to the presence of fusion genes, Xp11 tRCC and t(6;11) RCC are also known as TFE3- and TFEB-rearranged RCC, respectively. TFE3 and TFEB belong to the MiT family, which regulates melanocyte and osteoclast differentiation, and TFE3- and TFEB-rearranged RCC show characteristic clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features. Recent studies identified the fusion partner-dependent clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features in TFE3-rearranged RCC. Furthermore, RCC with chromosome 6p amplification, including TFEB, was identified as a unique subtype of RCC, along with ALK-rearranged RCC. This review summarizes these recent advancements in our tRCC-related knowledge.

Melanotic MiT family translocation neoplasms: Expanding the clinical and molecular spectrum of this unique entity of tumors

MiT family translocation tumors are a group of neoplasms characterized by translocations involving MiT family transcription factors. The translocation renal cell carcinomas, TFE3 (Xp11.2) and TFEB (t6;11) are known members of this family. Melanotic Xp11 translocation renal cancer is a more recently described entity. To date only 14 cases have been described. It is characterized by a distinct set of features including a nested epithelioid morphology, melanin pigmentation, labeling for markers of melanocytic differentiation, lack of labeling for markers of renal tubular differentiation, predominance in a younger age population and association with aggressive clinical behavior. There are noted similarities between that entity and TFE3 associated PEComas. There are no cases reported of equivalent melanotic TFEB translocation renal cancer. We report 2 rare cases of melanotic translocation renal neoplasms. The first is a melanotic TFE3 translocation renal cancer with an indolent clinical course, occurring in a patient more than 3-decades older than the usual average age in which such tumors have been described. The other case is, to our knowledge, the first reported melanotic TFEB translocation cancer of the kidney. Both cases exhibit the same H&E morphology as previously reported in melanotic translocation renal cancers and label accordingly with HMB45 and Melan-A. While the TFE3 melanotic tumor lacked any evidence of renal tubular differentiation, the TFEB melanotic cancer exhibited some staining for renal tubular markers. Based on the unique features noted above, these two cases expand the clinical and molecular spectrum of the melanotic translocation renal cancers.

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

Amplification of chromosome 6p has been implicated in aggressive behavior in several cancers, but has not been characterized in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We identified 9 renal tumors with amplification of chromosome 6p including the TFEB gene, 3 by fluorescence in situ hybridization, and 6 from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) databases. Patients' ages were 28 to 78 years (median, 61 y). Most tumors were high stage (7/9 pT3a, 2/9 pN1). Using immunohistochemistry, 2/4 were positive for melanocytic markers and cathepsin K. Novel TFEB fusions were reported by TCGA in 2; however, due to a small composition of fusion transcripts compared with full-length transcripts (0.5/174 and 3.3/132 FPKM), we hypothesize that these represent secondary fusions due to amplification. Five specimens (4 TCGA, 1 fluorescence in situ hybridization) had concurrent chromosome 3p copy number loss or VHL deletion. However, these did not resemble clear cell RCC, had negative carbonic anhydrase IX labeling, lacked VHL mutation, and had papillary or unclassified histology (2/4 had gain of chromosome 7 or 17). One tumor each had somatic FH mutation and SMARCB1 mutation. Chromosome 6p amplification including TFEB is a previously unrecognized cytogenetic alteration in RCC, associated with heterogenous tubulopapillary eosinophilic and clear cell histology. The combined constellation of features does not fit cleanly into an existing tumor category (unclassified), most closely resembling papillary or translocation RCC. The tendency for high tumor stage, varied tubulopapillary morphology, and a subset with melanocytic marker positivity suggests the possibility of a unique tumor type, despite some variation in appearance and genetics.

Current approaches for avoiding the limitations of circulating tumor cells detection methods-implications for diagnosis and treatment of patients with solid tumors

Eight million people die of cancer each year and 90% of deaths are caused by systemic disease. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) contribute to the formation of metastases and thus are the subject of extensive research and an abiding interest to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Recent technological advances have resulted in greatly improved CTC detection, enumeration, expansion, and culture methods. However, despite the fact that nearly 150 years have passed since the first detection and description of CTCs in human blood and enormous technological progress that has taken place in this field, especially within the last decade, few CTC detection methods have been approved for routine clinical use. This reflects the substantial methodological problems related to the nature of these cells, their heterogeneity, and diverse metastatic potential. Here, we provide an overview of CTC phenotypes, including the plasticity of CTCs and the relevance of inflammation and cell fusion phenomena for CTC biology. We also review the literature on CTC detection methodology-its recent improvements, clinical significance, and efforts of its clinical application in cancer patients management. At present, CTC detection remains a challenging diagnostic approach as a result of numerous current methodological limitations. This is especially problematic during the early stages of the disease due to the small numbers of CTCs released into the blood of cancer patients. Nonetheless, the rapid development of novel techniques of CTC detection and enumeration in peripheral blood is expected to expedite their implementation in the clinical setting. It is of utmost importance to understand the biology of CTCs and their distinct populations as a prerequisite for achieving this ultimate goal.

A Review of Translocation T(6;11) Renal Cell Carcinoma Tumors in the Adult Patient

Historically, T(6;11) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been associated with the pediatric and adolescent populations and documentation of this tumor in adults has been rare. However, the frequency of translocation renal cell carcinoma (TRCC) may be widely underestimated in the adult population due to an inadequate immunohistochemical workup or misdiagnosis from similar gross and histological findings to other RCC. A subset of MiT family translocation carcinomas, t(6:11) (p21;q12) translocation tumors cause an alpha-TFEB gene fusion. Morphologically, this neoplasm tends to mimic the various types of RCC's, including clear cell, papillary, and even epitheloid angiomyolipomas. Adult cases of TRCC have shown to behave more aggressively than their indolent pediatric counterpart, but due to the limited number of reported cases the true nature of these tumors has yet to be determined. The aim of this review is to bring an awareness of translocation RCC to better understand its diagnoses, treatment and prognosis, and, in turn, to allow for new cases to further highlight the behavior of this rare variant.

Modelling TFE renal cell carcinoma in mice reveals a critical role of WNT signaling

TFE-fusion renal cell carcinomas (TFE-fusion RCCs) are caused by chromosomal translocations that lead to overexpression of the TFEB and TFE3 genes (Kauffman et al., 2014). The mechanisms leading to kidney tumor development remain uncharacterized and effective therapies are yet to be identified. Hence, the need to model these diseases in an experimental animal system (Kauffman et al., 2014). Here, we show that kidney-specific TFEB overexpression in transgenic mice, resulted in renal clear cells, multi-layered basement membranes, severe cystic pathology, and ultimately papillary carcinomas with hepatic metastases. These features closely recapitulate those observed in both TFEB- and TFE3-mediated human kidney tumors. Analysis of kidney samples revealed transcriptional induction and enhanced signaling of the WNT β-catenin pathway. WNT signaling inhibitors normalized the proliferation rate of primary kidney cells and significantly rescued the disease phenotype in vivo. These data shed new light on the mechanisms underlying TFE-fusion RCCs and suggest a possible therapeutic strategy based on the inhibition of the WNT pathway.

TFEB at a glance

The transcription factor EB (TFEB) plays a pivotal role in the regulation of basic cellular processes, such as lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy. The subcellular localization and activity of TFEB are regulated by mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR)-mediated phosphorylation, which occurs at the lysosomal surface. Phosphorylated TFEB is retained in the cytoplasm, whereas dephosphorylated TFEB translocates to the nucleus to induce the transcription of target genes. Thus, a lysosome-to-nucleus signaling pathway regulates cellular energy metabolism through TFEB. Recently, in vivo studies have revealed that TFEB is also involved in physiological processes, such as lipid catabolism. TFEB has attracted a lot of attention owing to its ability to induce the intracellular clearance of pathogenic factors in a variety of murine models of disease, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, suggesting that novel therapeutic strategies could be based on the modulation of TFEB activity. In this Cell Science at a Glance article and accompanying poster, we present an overview of the latest research on TFEB function and its implication in human diseases.

TFEB and TFE3: Linking Lysosomes to Cellular Adaptation to Stress

In recent years, our vision of lysosomes has drastically changed. Formerly considered to be mere degradative compartments, they are now recognized as key players in many cellular processes. The ability of lysosomes to respond to different stimuli revealed a complex and coordinated regulation of lysosomal gene expression. This review discusses the participation of the transcription factors TFEB and TFE3 in the regulation of lysosomal function and biogenesis, as well as the role of the lysosomal pathway in cellular adaptation to a variety of stress conditions, including nutrient deprivation, mitochondrial dysfunction, protein misfolding, and pathogen infection. We also describe how cancer cells make use of TFEB and TFE3 to promote their own survival and highlight the potential of these transcription factors as therapeutic targets for the treatment of neurological and lysosomal diseases.

Molecular genetics and immunohistochemistry characterization of uncommon and recently described renal cell carcinomas

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) compromises multiple types and has been emerging dramatically over the recent several decades. Advances and consensus have been achieved targeting common RCCs, such as clear cell carcinoma, papillary RCC and chromophobe RCC. Nevertheless, little is known on the characteristics of several newly-identified RCCs, including clear cell (tubulo) papillary RCC, Xp11 translocation RCC, t(6;11) RCC, succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient RCC, acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, hereditary leiomyomatosis RCC syndrome-associated RCC, ALK translocation RCC, thyroid-like follicular RCC, tubulocystic RCC and hybrid oncocytic/chromophobe tumors (HOCT). In current review, we will collect available literature of these newly-described RCCs, analyze their clinical pathologic characteristics, discuss their morphologic and immunohistologic features, and finally summarize their molecular and genetic evidences. We expect this review would be beneficial for the understanding of RCCs, and eventually promote clinical management strategies.

Translocational renal cell carcinoma (t(6;11)(p21;q12) with transcription factor EB (TFEB) amplification and an integrated precision approach: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Renal cell carcinoma with the distinct type of t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation (transcription factor EB) is a rare neoplasm. In the present case study, we show for the first time an autophagy signature in a patient with transcription factor EB renal cell carcinoma. We attempted to characterize the mutational and expressional features of a t(6;11)(p21;q12) renal cell carcinoma, in an effort to address the potential for molecular guidance of personalized medical decision for a case in this renal cell carcinoma category.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report the case of a 42-year-old white man who had a late relapse of his renal cell carcinoma. The first diagnosis of clear cell renal carcinoma was derived from a histological examination; analyzing the metastasis and going back to the primary tumor it turned out to be a transcription factor EB-renal cell carcinoma. The treatment plan included local radiation and systemic therapy. As part of the multimodal approach, tumor samples for genetic assessment were obtained. However, there is no recommended standard therapy for transcription factor EB-renal cell carcinoma. Despite four lines of medical treatment with targeted therapy and one checkpoint inhibitor, all attempts to prolong the patient's survival failed.

CONCLUSIONS

During the course of this unusual disease, we gained insights which, to the best of our knowledge, were unknown before in the expression of the gene signature linked to autophagy. This might in part explain the resistance to conventional targeted therapy acknowledged in our patient.

Emerging Entities in Renal Neoplasia

This article reviews emerging entities in renal epithelial neoplasia, including tubulocystic carcinoma, clear-cell-papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC), thyroid-like follicular RCC, ALK-related RCC, translocation RCC, acquired cystic disease-related RCC, succinate dehydrogenase-deficient RCC, and hereditary leiomyomatosis-RCC syndrome-associated RCC. Many of these rarer subtypes of RCC were recently studied in more depth and are included in the upcoming version of the World Health Organization classification of tumors. Emphasis is placed on common gross and morphologic features, differential diagnoses, use of ancillary studies for making accurate diagnoses, molecular alterations, and predicted biologic behavior based on previous studies.

Renal cell carcinomas with t(6;11) (p21;q12): presentation of two cases with computed tomography findings

Renal cell carcinomas with t(6;11) (p21;q12) translocation are extremely rare and primarily affect children and young adults. To our knowledge, there has been no case report focusing on the imaging manifestations in the existing literature. Hence, we describe the computed tomography findings of two young adults.

Molecular genetics and cellular features of TFE3 and TFEB fusion kidney cancers

Despite nearly two decades passing since the discovery of gene fusions involving TFE3 or TFEB in sporadic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the molecular mechanisms underlying the renal-specific tumorigenesis of these genes remain largely unclear. The recently published findings of The Cancer Genome Atlas Network reported that five of the 416 surveyed clear cell RCC tumours (1.2%) harboured SFPQ-TFE3 fusions, providing further evidence for the importance of gene fusions. A total of five TFE3 gene fusions (PRCC-TFE3, ASPSCR1-TFE3, SFPQ-TFE3, NONO-TFE3, and CLTC-TFE3) and one TFEB gene fusion (MALAT1-TFEB) have been identified in RCC tumours and characterized at the mRNA transcript level. A multitude of molecular pathways well-described in carcinogenesis are regulated in part by TFE3 or TFEB proteins, including activation of TGFβ and ETS transcription factors, E-cadherin expression, CD40L-dependent lymphocyte activation, mTORC1 signalling, insulin-dependent metabolism regulation, folliculin signalling, and retinoblastoma-dependent cell cycle arrest. Determining which pathways are most important to RCC oncogenesis will be critical in discovering the most promising therapeutic targets for this disease.

t(6;11) renal cell carcinoma (RCC): expanded immunohistochemical profile emphasizing novel RCC markers and report of 10 new genetically confirmed cases

Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) harboring the t(6;11)(p21;q12) translocation were first described in 2001 and recently recognized by the 2013 International Society of Urological Pathology Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia. Although these RCCs are known to label for melanocytic markers HMB45 and Melan A and the cysteine protease cathepsin K by immunohistochemistry (IHC), a comprehensive IHC profile has not been reported. We report 10 new t(6;11) RCCs, all confirmed by break-apart TFEB fluorescence in situ hybridization. A tissue microarray containing 6 of these cases and 7 other previously reported t(6;11) RCCs was constructed and immunolabeled for 21 different antigens. Additional whole sections of t(6;11) RCC were labeled with selected IHC markers. t(6;11) RCC labeled diffusely and consistently for cathepsin K and Melan A (13 of 13 cases) and almost always at least focally for HMB45 (12 of 13 cases). They labeled frequently for PAX8 (14 of 23 cases), CD117 (10 of 14 cases), and vimentin (9 of 13 cases). A majority of cases labeled at least focally for cytokeratin Cam5.2 (8 of 13 cases) and CD10 and RCC marker antigen (10 of 14 cases each). In contrast to a prior study's findings, only a minority of cases labeled for Ksp-cadherin (3 of 19 cases). The median H score (product of intensity score and percentage labeling) for phosphorylated S6, a marker of mTOR pathway activation, was 101, which is high relative to most other RCC subtypes. In summary, IHC labeling for PAX8, Cam5.2, CD10, and RCC marker antigen supports classification of the t(6;11) RCC as carcinomas despite frequent negativity for broad-spectrum cytokeratins and EMA. Labeling for PAX8 distinguishes the t(6;11) RCC from epithelioid angiomyolipoma, which otherwise shares a similar immunoprofile. CD117 labeling is more frequent in the t(6;11) RCC compared with the related Xp11 translocation RCC. Increased pS6 expression suggests a possible molecular target for the uncommon t(6;11) RCCs that metastasize.

MiT translocation renal cell carcinomas: two subgroups of tumours with translocations involving 6p21 [t (6; 11)] and Xp11.2 [t (X;1 or X or 17)]

INTRODUCTION

MiT translocation renal cell carcinomas (TRCC) predominantly occur in younger patients with only 25% of patients being over 40 years. TRCC contains two main subgroups with translocations involving 6p21 or Xp11.2. Herein we present 10 cases.

MATERIALS

Eight cases were treated at main author's institution (identified among 1653 (0.48%) cases of kidney tumours in adults). Two cases were retrieved from the Pilsen (CZ) Tumour Registry.

RESULTS

Six cases were type Xp11.2 and four 6p21; 7 female, 3 male patients; Xp11.2 4:2, 6p21 3:1. The mean age 49 years (range: 21-80), 5 patients (50%) over 40 years. The mean age of the group with Xp11.2 TRCCs was 55 (median 51) and 6p21 41 (32) years. One female with a 6p21 tumour (24 years) underwent nephrectomy at 4 months of pregnancy. Stage (UICC, 7th ed. 2009) was 5xI, 3xIII, 2xIV. The mean size of tumour was 80 (40-165) mm. The mean follow-up was 33.2 (1-92) months. In patients with 6p21 tumours, one (25%) died after 3 months due to widely metastatic disease. In patients with Xp11.2 tumours, 3 (50%) succumbed due to metastatic disease (range 1-8 months). Three patients with Xp11.2 are alive at 7, 52 and 92 months of follow-up, were diagnosed at early stage (T1a).

CONCLUSION

TRCCs were more common in females. Patient with 6p21 tumours were younger than those with Xp11.2. Both types have definitive malignant potential Type Xp11.2 seems to be a more aggressive neoplasm than 6p21. The case with metastatic 6p21 tumour is the 4th case described in the English literature.

Renal cell carcinoma: Evolving and emerging subtypes

Our knowledge of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rapidly expanding. For those who diagnose and treat RCC, it is important to understand the new developments. In recent years, many new renal tumors have been described and defined, and our understanding of the biology and clinical correlates of these tumors is changing. Evolving concepts in Xp11 translocation carcinoma, mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma, multilocular cystic clear cell RCC, and carcinoma associated with neuroblastoma are addressed within this review. Tubulocystic carcinoma, thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of kidney, acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, and clear cell papillary RCC are also described. Finally, candidate entities, including RCC with t(6;11) translocation, hybrid oncocytoma/chromophobe RCC, hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome, and renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor are reviewed. Knowledge of these new entities is important for diagnosis, treatment and subsequent prognosis. This review provides a targeted summary of new developments in RCC.

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.

Molecular confirmation of t(6;11)(p21;q12) renal cell carcinoma in archival paraffin-embedded material using a break-apart TFEB FISH assay expands its clinicopathologic spectrum

A subset of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) is characterized by t(6;11)(p21;q12), which results in fusion of the untranslated Alpha (MALAT1) gene to the TFEB gene. Only 21 genetically confirmed cases of t(6;11) RCCs have been reported. This neoplasm typically demonstrates a distinctive biphasic morphology, comprising larger epithelioid cells and smaller cells clustered around basement membrane material; however, the full spectrum of its morphologic appearances is not known. The t(6;11) RCCs differ from most conventional RCCs in that they consistently express melanocytic immunohistochemical (IHC) markers such as HMB45 and Melan A and the cysteine protease cathepsin K but are often negative for epithelial markers such as cytokeratins. TFEB IHC has been proven to be useful to confirm the diagnosis of t(6;11) RCCs in archival material, because native TFEB is upregulated through promoter substitution by the gene fusion. However, IHC is highly fixation dependent and has been proven to be particularly difficult for TFEB. A validated fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for molecular confirmation of the t(6;11) RCC in archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material has not been previously reported. We report herein the development of a break-apart TFEB FISH assay for the diagnosis of t(6;11)(p21;q12) RCCs. We validated the assay on 4 genetically confirmed cases and 76 relevant expected negative control cases and used the assay to report 8 new cases that expand the clinicopathologic spectrum of t(6;11) RCCs. An additional previously reported TFEB IHC-positive case was confirmed by TFEB FISH in 46-year-old archival material. In conclusion, TFEB FISH is a robust, clinically validated assay that can confirm the diagnosis of t(6;11) RCC in archival material and should allow a more comprehensive clinicopathologic delineation of this recently recognized neoplastic entity.