Immunohistochemical staining for BRAF V600E supports the diagnosis of metanephric adenoma

[2022 WHO classification of renal cell carcinomas: Focus on papillary renal cell carcinoma]

Renal cell carcinomas (RCC) represent a group of heterogeneous tumors whose classification has greatly evolved since 1981. The latest update in 2022 classifies all renal cell carcinomas into six categories according to their morphology or the detection of specific molecular alterations. Molecular disassembly of renal cell carcinomas with papillary features has enabled the identification of new entities characterized by a specific molecular alteration, such as Fumarate Hydratase (FH) deficient RCC, TFE3-rearranged RCC or TFEB-altered RCC. This new classification allows for a more accurate diagnosis but requires a thorough knowledge of the genomic alterations to search for with immunohistochemical or molecular biology techniques. According to the new WHO 2022 classification, papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRC) type 1 or type 2 classification is no longer recommended. A classification based on nucleolar ISUP grade must be preferred: low-grade PRC (ISUP 1-2) or high-grade PRC (ISUP 3-4). The other prognostic factors remain the same: the pTNM stage, lymphovascular invasion, and the presence or absence of dedifferentiated areas referring to sarcomatoid or rhabdoid features. Of note, the presence of necrosis is not currently recognized as a poor prognostic element for this type of carcinoma. The diagnosis of high-grade PRC is from now on a diagnosis of exclusion. It can only be sustained after having ruled out TFE3-rearranged RCC, TFEB-altered RCC, and FH-deficient RCC. For clinicians, the diagnosis of PRC implies suggesting an oncogenetic consultation to screen for an associated genetic tumor syndrome regardless of the patient's age.

Metanephric adenoma: molecular study and review of the literature

Introduction: Metanephric adenoma (MA) is an uncommon benign tumor accounting for 0.2–0.7% of adult renal epithelial neoplasms. The clinical course is often indolent, but diagnosis should not be delayed since clinical symptoms (hematuria, fever, palpable abdominal mass, and flank pain) may be non-specific and overlap with those of a malign renal neoplasm. We report on 4 cases of AM, for which morphological and mutational analysis were performed.

Material and Methods: Immunohistochemical staining was performed on sections cut from paraffin blocks to assess expression of WT1, vimentin, racemase, CK7, CD10 and RCC. Testing for the BRAF gene mutation V600 was carried out using real-time PCR (Cobas^® 4800).

Results: In all four cases, tumors were visible as well-circumscribed, non-encapsulated masses located in the renal cortex and extending towards the medulla. At immunohistochemical examination, tumor cells stained negative for CK7, CD10 and RCC and positive for both WT1 (nuclear, intense) and vimentin (cytoplasmic, intense, and diffuse). Molecular analysis revealed the BRAF gene mutation V600E in three cases and wild-type BRAF in the fourth.

Conclusions: BRAF molecular mutation analysis may aid diagnosis in cases with atypical histological features, especially in small incisional biopsies when reassessment of surgical treatment may be considered.

Key Renal Neoplasms With a Female Predominance

Renal neoplasms largely favor male patients; however, there is a growing list of tumors that are more frequently diagnosed in females. These tumors include metanephric adenoma, mixed epithelial and stromal tumor, juxtaglomerular cell tumor, mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma, Xp11.2 (TFE3) translocation-associated renal cell carcinoma, and tuberous sclerosis complex (somatic or germline) associated renal neoplasms. The latter category is a heterogenous group with entities still being delineated. Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma is the best-described entity, whereas, eosinophilic vacuolated tumor is a proposed entity, and the remaining tumors are currently grouped together under the umbrella of tuberous sclerosis complex/mammalian target of rapamycin-related renal neoplasms. The entities described in this review are often diagnostic considerations when evaluating renal mass tissue on biopsy or resection. For example, Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma is in the differential when a tumor has clear cell cytology and papillary architecture and occurs in a young or middle-aged patient. In contrast, tuberous sclerosis complex-related neoplasms often enter the differential for tumors with eosinophilic cytology. This review provides an overview of the clinical, gross, microscopic, immunohistochemical, genetic, and molecular alterations in key renal neoplasms occurring more commonly in females; differential diagnoses are also discussed regardless of sex predilection.

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.

Classification of renal cell tumors – current concepts and use of ancillary tests: recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Pathology

Classification of renal cell carcinomas has become more challenging. The 2016 WHO classification included 14 different subtypes and 4 emerging/provisional entities, and recent literature indicates new entities to be incorporated. Nomenclature is based on cytoplasmic appearance, architecture, combination of morphologies, anatomic location, underlying disease, familial syndromes, and specific genetic alterations. Immunohistochemistry is useful in selected cases while it can be insufficient in entities that require molecular confirmation of a specific gene alteration. The aim of these recommendations is to provide a reasonable and optimized approach for the use of ancillary tests in subtyping renal tumors, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Metanephric adenoma with BRAF V600K mutation and a doubtful radiological imaging: pitfalls in the diagnostic process

Metanephric adenoma (MA) is an uncommon benign renal tumor whose histomorphological aspect resembles that of Wilms’ tumor and papillary renal cell carcinoma. From a diagnostic and therapeutic perspective, recognition of this entity is important as it has a more favorable clinical outcome compared with Wilms’ tumor and papillary renal cell carcinoma. MA should not be treated with nephrectomy if the tumor size is small, opting for a conservative treatment. However, the preoperative diagnosis of this disease is extremely challenging. The present study describes a case of this rare disease, showing an ambiguous radiological imaging and that only after a percutaneous biopsy, was defined as a MA and treated with partial nephrectomy. Moreover, the histological diagnosis of this case was partially complicated by the equivocal immunohistochemical analysis showing negativity for BRAF VE1 staining. Only the mutational analysis demonstrated the presence of the BRAF V600K mutation (for the first time described in a case of metanephric adenoma), highlighting the necessity of sequencing in case of MA with negativity for BRAF VE1 clone.

Pediatric Renal Tumors: Updates in the Molecular Era

Molecular characterization has led to advances in the understanding of pediatric renal tumors, including the association of pediatric cystic nephromas with DICER1 tumor syndrome, the metanephric family of tumors with somatic BRAF mutations, the characterization of ETV6-NTRK3-negative congenital mesoblastic nephromas, the expanded spectrum of gene fusions in translocation renal cell carcinoma, the relationship of clear cell sarcoma of the kidney with other BCOR-altered tumors, and the pathways affected by SMARCB1 alterations in rhabdoid tumors of the kidney. These advances have implications for diagnosis, classification, and treatment of pediatric renal tumors.

Molecular characterisation of metanephric adenomas beyond BRAF: genetic evidence for potential malignant evolution

AIMS

Metanephric adenomas (MAs) are conventionally regarded as rare renal tumours with indolent behaviour; limited case reports have described MAs with aggressive features. Conventional MAs harbour hotspot BRAF V600E mutations. A BRAF V600E senescence pathway, mediated by cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A)/p16, has been proposed to confer MA benignity. Aside from BRAF, the molecular landscape in both conventional MAs and those with aggressive features has not been fully characterised. The aim of this study was to molecularly profile a series of MAs to investigate the correlation between genomic findings and clinical outcome.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively examined the histomorphology and patient outcomes of 11 conventional MAs and one MA with aggressive features. Each was subjected to capture-based next-generation DNA sequencing of 479 cancer-related genes and immunohistochemical profiling. All tumours were positive for WT1 immunostaining and BRAF V600E mutation. One conventional MA contained an additional somatic BRCA2 pathogenic mutation. The MA with aggressive features had a biphasic appearance: one component was epithelial, with areas morphologically consistent with conventional MA; the second component was sarcomatous, with areas of solid and angiosarcomatous growth. Differential profiling of the two populations revealed identical BRAF, EIF1AX and TERT promoter hotspot mutations in the epithelial and sarcomatous components. Deep deletion of CDKN2A and MYC amplification were identified only in the sarcomatous component.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the vast majority of MAs show indolent behaviour, rare pathogenic alterations can occur in conventional MAs in addition to BRAF. Molecular profiling of a case with aggressive clinical and pathological features shows genetic evidence for malignant evolution in MAs.

Novel clinicopathological and molecular characterization of metanephric adenoma: a study of 28 cases

Background

Metanephric adenoma is a rare, benign renal neoplasm with occasional misdiagnosis. However, its molecular characterization is not fully understood.

Methods

In this study, we use the hybrid capture-based Next-Generation Sequencing to sequence a panel of 295 well-established oncogene or tumor suppressor genes in 28 cases of MA patients in China. Novel clinicopathological markers associated with the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway in metanephric adenoma were detected by immunohistochemistry.

Results

It was found that except for BRAF (22/28) mutations (c.1799 T > A, p.V600E), NF1 (6/28), NOTCH1 (5/28), SPEN (5/28), AKT2 (4/28), APC (4/28), ATRX (3/28), and ETV4 (3/28) mutations could also be detected. Meanwhile, a novel and rare gene fusion of STARD9-BRAF, CUX1-BRAF, and LOC100507389-BRAF was detected in one MA patient. In addition, although MEK phosphorylation was normally activated, the phosphorylation level of ERK was low in metanephric adenoma cases. Highly expressed p16 and DUSP6 may have contributed to these results, which maintained MA as a benign renal tumor.

Conclusions

This study provides novel molecular and pathological markers for metanephric adenoma, which could improve its diagnosis and increase the understanding of its pathologic mechanism.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13000-018-0732-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adult Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Review of Established Entities from Morphology to Molecular Genetics

According to the current World Health Organization (WHO), renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) that primarily affect adults are classified into 8 major subtypes. Additional emerging entities in renal neoplasia have also been recently recognized and these are discussed in further detail by Mehra et al (Emerging Entities in Renal Neoplasia, Surgical Pathology Clinics, 2015, Volume 8, Issue 4). In most cases, the diagnosis of a RCC subtype can be based on morphologic criteria, but in some circumstances the use of ancillary studies can aid in the diagnosis. This review discusses the morphologic, genetic, and molecular findings in RCCs previously recognized by the WHO, and provides clues to distinction from each other and some of the newer subtypes of RCC. As prognosis and therapeutic options vary for the different subtypes of RCC, accurate pathologic distinction is critical for patient care.

Distinct clinicopathological features in metanephric adenoma harboring BRAF mutation

BRAF mutation recently has been reported in metanephric adenoma. We sought to determine the clinical and morphologic features of BRAF-mutated metanephric adenoma and to correlate BRAF mutation with BRAF V600E immunohistochemical staining results. A series of 48 metanephric adenomas and 15 epithelial-predominant nephroblastomas were analyzed for the occurrence of BRAF mutation (BRAF V600E/V600E complex, BRAF V600D, BRAF V600K and BRAF V600R) using the BRAF RGQ PCR kit (Qiagen). Immunohistochemistry was performed using monoclonal mouse antibodies against p16^INK4 and VE1 (Spring Bioscience), recognizing the BRAF V600E mutant protein. Forty-one of 48 cases (85%) showed BRAF V600E mutation; none of the other BRAF variants was detected. Of 41 BRAF-mutated metanephric adenomas, 33 showed positive VE1 immunostaining (sensitivity 80%, specificity 100%); in all cases we detected p16^INK4 expression regardless of BRAF mutation status. All epithelial-predominant nephroblastomas were BRAF-wild-type and none expressed VE1. The following features were associated with BRAF V600E mutation: older patients (p=0.01), female predominance (p=0.005) and the presence of a predominantly acinar architecture (p=0.003). In summary, BRAF-mutated metanephric adenomas were associated with older age, female predominance, and the presence of a predominant acinar component. A subset (20%) of BRAF-mutated metanephric adenomas was not detected by VE1 immunostaining.

Diagnosis of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Clinician's Perspective

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a heterogeneous disease. A rigorous diagnostic assessment by a pathologist with close communication with the clinician provides more accurate prognostication and informed treatment decisions. In the localized setting, an accurate prognostic assessment directs patients to potential adjuvant clinical trials. For patients with advanced disease, the pathologic assessment may have a direct impact on the systemic therapy algorithm. Additionally, it provides the basis for continuous efforts in biomarker development. In rare histologic subtypes, the interaction between clinicians and pathologists provides an opportunity to offer patients specific clinical trials. Molecular characterization platforms may identify targets for therapeutic intervention.

Molecular and immunohistochemical characterization reveals novel BRAF mutations in metanephric adenoma

Metanephric adenoma (MA) is a rare benign renal tumor comprised of a neoplastic proliferation of primitive metanephric tubular cells. A previous study identified BRAF V600E mutations in approximately 90% of MA and found that similar BRAF exon 15 mutations are exceedingly rare in other common renal tumors, including renal cell carcinoma and oncocytoma. A recent follow-up study has validated mutation-specific immunohistochemistry (IHC) for detection of BRAF V600E mutations in a small cohort of MA. Here, we extend these findings to a larger, independent cohort of MA, demonstrating an overall 88% sensitivity and 100% specificity for BRAF V600E IHC. In addition, we report 2 cases of MA with novel BRAF exon 15 mutations, including a V600D missense mutation and a compound V600D and K601L missense mutation. Finally, we evaluate BRAF V600E IHC in a large tissue microarray cohort of common renal tumors and find no significant expression in several renal cell carcinoma subtypes. These data support a role for BRAF V600E IHC in diagnostically challenging cases of MA and expand the spectrum of BRAF exon 15 mutations in this uncommon but unique renal neoplasm.

BRAF mutations in pediatric metanephric tumors

Metanephric neoplasms of the kidney are uncommon, and some cases are associated with papillary carcinoma. Most cases of metanephric adenoma occur in adults, with fewer than 25 cases reported in children, and metanephric adenofibroma is even less common. The few metanephric tumors studied at the genetic level have not shown the gains of chromosomes 7 and 17 commonly seen in renal cell carcinoma, suggesting that the carcinoma arising in this setting has a separate genetic origin from the adenoma. However, the assumption that this carcinoma has the same chromosome gains as sporadic renal cell carcinoma has never been validated. We studied 4 cases of metanephric tumors in children, including 1 metanephric adenofibroma with papillary carcinoma. The composite tumor was studied by single nucleotide polymorphism array and fluorescence in situ hybridization, with the adenoma and carcinoma components analyzed separately. No copy number alterations were detected in either component. A BRAF V600E mutation has been reported in most cases of metanephric adenoma in adults. We performed BRAF V600E immunostaining and sequencing in our 4 pediatric cases. Three cases had a BRAF V600E mutation including the composite tumor, with both the adenoma and carcinoma components showing the same mutation. This finding provides the first genetic evidence that these 2 tumors are biologically linked. Ten cases each of pediatric renal cell carcinoma and Wilms tumor were immunonegative. Thus, BRAF V600E immunostaining is a helpful marker for pediatric metanephric adenoma, and additional research is required on the possible role of this mutation in the development of renal carcinoma.