Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation

Cytopathology and clinicopathological correlation of renal neuroendocrine neoplasms

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of documentation regarding cytopathology of renal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) due to their rarity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five cytology cases were gathered from 3 institutes.

RESULTS

Cohort consisted of 4 females and 1 male. Fine needle aspiration biopsy and touch preparation slides of core needle biopsy revealed cellular samples, composed of round, plasmacytoid, or columnar cells. Tumor cells were present in nested, acinar, 3D cluster, and individual cell patterns. Tumor cells in 3 cases exhibited uniformly round to oval small nuclei with inconspicuous nucleoli, finely granular chromatin, and smooth nuclear membranes, whereas 2 other cases showed pleomorphic nuclei with conspicuous nucleoli, nuclear molding, and irregular nuclear membranes. Tumor cells displayed pale or granular cytoplasm, with 1 case showing small vacuoles. Examination of cores and cell blocks demonstrated tumor cells in sheets, nests, or acini. All tumor cells were positive for neuroendocrine immunomarkers. Based on mitotic count, Ki-67 index and morphology, 3 tumors were graded as well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (WDNET) (1 grade [G] 3, 1 G2, 1 G1) and 2 as large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Deletion of 7q, 10q, and 19q was detected in WDNETs. Two patients with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and 1 with WDNET G3 underwent chemotherapy due to aggressiveness, whereas nephrectomy was performed for patients with WDNET G1 and 2 without metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytopathological characteristics of renal NENs closely resemble those affecting other organs. Despite its rarity, renal NENs should be kept in mind when confronted with morphological resemblances to NENs, to prevent misdiagnosis and inappropriate therapeutic interventions.

Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma With Extensive Retraction Artifact: A Potential Diagnostic Pitfall From Micropapillary Urothelial Carcinoma

In addition to "classic" and eosinophilic subtype, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is well-known to demonstrate various morphological patterns including adenomatoid, microcystic, pigmented, multicystic, papillary, neuroendocrine-like, and small cell-like, all of which are important to appreciate for accurate diagnosis. Herein, we expand on a unique chromophobe RCC morphology not previously described consisting of tumor cells with extensive stromal retraction, mimicking upper urothelial tract micropapillary carcinoma (MPC). Twelve MPC-like chromophobe RCC nephrectomies were reviewed with clinicopathological features recorded; molecular testing was performed on 7 of 12 tumors. Patients were mostly men (n=10) with a mean age of 65 years. Mean tumor size was 6.4 cm with pathological stage distribution as follows: 4 (33%) T1a, 2 (17%) T1b, 1 (8%) T2b, and 3 (25%) T3a. The extent of MPC-like chromophobe RCC foci ranged from 10% to 40% (mean=26%; there was no correlation between the extent of MPC-like chromophobe RCC foci and tumor stage). Other chromophobe RCC morphological patterns were not identified. When performed, all (100%) tumors depicted prototypic chromophobe RCC staining pattern of KIT positivity/KRT7 positivity. Molecular showed 6 of 7 (86%) with multiple chromosomal losses. Clinically significant mutations were identified in NF1, TP53, FLCN (likely somatic), CHEK2, and ZFHX3 genes. Follow up available in 9 patients showed no evidence of disease (mean=23 months). Although the etiology behind the extensive stromal retraction in our tumors is unknown, this may likely be artifactual in nature. Nonetheless, it is important to include MPC-like chromophobe RCC in the spectrum of "variant" morphologies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls from micropapillary carcinoma.

The Histologic Diversity of Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma With Emphasis on Challenges Encountered in Daily Practice

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) is the third most common renal cell carcinoma in adults. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview highlighting the broad morphologic spectrum of ChRCC, and offer a practical approach for handling cases in daily practice. For the purpose of this review, we classify ChRCC subtypes as (1) classic, (2) eosinophilic, (3) sarcomatoid, and (4) other rare patterns. The concept of eosinophilic ChRCC has significantly evolved, yet it still is one of the major diagnostic challenges pathologists face in routine practice due to its morphologic overlap with renal oncocytoma. Rare patterns of ChRCC have been described over the last few decades, showing a wide histologic spectrum including those with adenomatoid microcystic pigmented, multicystic, neuroendocrine, small cell, and papillary features. ChRCC represents a heterogenous group of neoplasms, demonstrating varied but unique morphologic and genetic profiles. Although the field of ChRCC knowledge is still evolving, rare patterns can present diagnostic challenges if they are not known to pathologists and/or clinicians. Proper and generous tumor sampling along with careful histologic examination allow for recognition of these rare morphologies. The role of routine molecular testing appears to be limited. From a clinical management standpoint, the rare patterns of ChRCC seem to have no definite clinical implications at present and likely can be managed similarly to usual ChRCC. Finally, we will discuss distinctive novel/emerging renal neoplasms previously considered under the spectrum of ChRCC, low-grade oncocytic renal tumor and eosinophilic vacuolated tumor, with regard to their current significance and implications for future classification strategies.

Immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of renal epithelial neoplasms

Despite the increasing number of newly identified renal neoplasms, the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can usually be reached with careful histologic examination and a limited immunohistochemical (IHC) panel. Clear cell, papillary, chromophobe RCC and oncocytoma account for more than 90% of renal neoplasia in adults, and sophisticated ancillary tools are usually unnecessary. Renal tumors with entity-defining genetic alterations may ultimately require molecular confirmation via cytogenetics or sequencing technologies, such as RCC with TFE3, TFEB, or ALK gene rearrangements, or TFEB amplified RCC. In fumarate hydratase-deficient and succinate dehydrogenase-deficient RCC, highly specific IHC markers can strongly suggest the diagnosis. In the metastatic setting, PAX8 and carbonic anhydrase 9 are among the most helpful markers for confirming RCC and clear cell type, respectively; however, caution should be exercised in the absence of a current or historical renal mass. In diagnostically challenging cases, such as renal eosinophilic tumors with low-grade nuclear features, or infiltrative high-grade tumors, careful examination coupled with a judicious panel of IHC markers usually resolves the diagnosis. This review offers concise algorithms for diagnosis of kidney neoplasia with the latest recognized, provisional, and emerging entities to daily pathology practice.

Comprehensive Review of Numerical Chromosomal Aberrations in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Including Its Variant Morphologies

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) accounts for 5% to 7% of all renal cell carcinomas. It was thought for many years that ChRCC exhibits a hypodiploid genome. Recent studies using advanced molecular genetics techniques have shown more complex and heterogenous pattern with frequent chromosomal gains. Historically, multiple losses of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21 have been considered a genetic hallmark of ChRCC, both for classic and eosinophilic ChRCC variants. In the last 2 decades, multiple chromosomal gains in ChRCCs have also been documented, depicting a considerably broader genetic spectrum than previously thought. Studies of rare morphologic variants including ChRCC with pigmented microcystic adenomatoid/multicystic growth, ChRCC with neuroendocrine differentiation, ChRCC with papillary architecture, and renal oncocytoma-like variants also showed variable chromosomal numerical aberrations, including multiple losses (common), gains (less common), or chromosomal changes overlapping with renal oncocytoma. Although not the focus of the review, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data in ChRCC show TP53, PTEN, and CDKN2A to be the most mutated genes. Given the complexity of molecular genetic alterations in ChRCC, this review analyzed the existing published data, aiming to present a comprehensive up-to-date survey of the chromosomal abnormalities in classic ChRCC and its variants. The potential role of chromosomal numerical aberrations in the differential diagnostic evaluation may be limited, potentially owing to its high variability.

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.

Expanding the morphologic spectrum of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: A study of 8 cases with papillary architecture

Although typically arranged in solid alveolar fashion, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may also show several other architectural growth patterns. We include in this series 8 chromophobe RCC cases with prominent papillary growth, a pattern very rarely reported or only mentioned as a feature of chromophobe RCC, which is lacking wider recognition The differential diagnosis of such cases significantly varies from the typical chromophobe RCC with its usual morphology, particularly its distinction from papillary RCC and other relevant and clinically important entities. Of 972 chromophobe RCCs in our files, we identified 8 chromophobe RCCs with papillary growth. We performed immunohistochemistry and array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) to investigate for possible chromosomal aberrations. Patients were 3 males and 5 females with age ranging from 30 to 84 years (mean 57.5, median 60 years). Tumor size was variable and ranged from 2 to 14 cm (mean 7.5, median 6.6 cm). Follow-up was available for 7 of 8 patients, ranging from 1 to 61 months (mean 20.1, median 12 months). Six patients were alive with no signs of aggressive behavior, and one died of the disease. Histologically, all cases were composed of dual cell population consisting of variable proportions of leaf-like cells with pale cytoplasm and eosinophilic cells. The extent of papillary component ranged from 15 to 100% of the tumor volume (mean 51%, median 50%). Sarcomatoid differentiation was identified only in the case with fatal outcome. Immunohistochemically, all tumors were positive for CK7, CD117 and Hale's Colloidal Iron. PAX8 was positive in 5 of 8 cases, TFE3 was focally positive 3 of 8 tumors, and Cathepsin K was focally positive in 2 of 8 tumors. All cases were negative for vimentin, AMACR and HMB45. Fumarate hydratase staining was retained in all tested cases. The proliferative activity was low (up to 1% in 7, up to 5% in one case). Three cases were successfully analyzed by aCGH and all showed a variable copy number variation profile with multiple chromosomal gains and losses. CONCLUSIONS: Chromophobe RCC demonstrating papillary architecture is an exceptionally rare carcinoma. The diagnosis can be challenging, although the cytologic features are consistent with the classic chromophobe RCC. Given the prognostic and therapeutic implications of accurately diagnosis other RCCs with papillary architecture (i.e., Xp11.2 translocation RCC, FH-deficient RCC), it is crucial to differentiate these cases from chromophobe RCC with papillary architecture. Based on this limited series, the presence of papillary architecture does not appear to have negative prognostic impact. However, its wider recognition may allow in depth studies on additional examples of this rare morphologic variant.

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma or oncocytoma: a manner of challenge in frozen section diagnosis

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a rare type of kidney neoplasm that is diagnosed in the 6th decade of life with similar incidence in male and female. We reported a case of 73-year-old man with a chief complaint of nocturia, frequency, dribbling and urinary retention with renal mass in ultrasound examination. Histologic examination and immunohistochemistry study revealed the diagnosis of chromophobe RCC which initially was mistaken for oncocytoma in frozen section diagnosis. The pathologist should be aware of this malignant entity and be cautious in diagnosing oncocytoma in frozen section and routine H & E staining.

Combined Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma with Neuroendocrine Differentiation and Mucinous Tubular and Spindle Cell Carcinoma

A unique case of combined papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) and mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC) presenting in a man aged 67 years is reported. The two separate components were distinct on morphological, immunohistochemical (IHC), and genetic grounds, while type 2 PRCC predominated. Three years after the initial diagnosis, the PRCC component metastasized to the lungs where it morphologically mimicked a pulmonary neuroendocrine tumor. Retrospectively focal neuroendocrine differentiation was demonstrated by IHC in the PRCC component of the primary neoplasm.

Mixed Neuroendocrine-Nonneuroendocrine Neoplasms (MiNENs): Unifying the Concept of a Heterogeneous Group of Neoplasms

The wide application of immunohistochemistry to the study of tumors has led to the recognition that epithelial neoplasms composed of both a neuroendocrine and nonneuroendocrine component are not as rare as traditionally believed. It has been recommended that mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine epithelial neoplasms are classified as only those in which either component represents at least 30 % of the lesion but this cutoff has not been universally accepted. Moreover, since their pathogenetic and clinical features are still unclear, mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine epithelial neoplasms are not included as a separate clinicopathological entity in most WHO classifications, although they have been observed in virtually all organs. In the WHO classification of digestive tumors, mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasm is considered a specific type and is defined as mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma, a definition that has not been accepted for other organs. In fact, this term does not adequately convey the morphological and biological heterogeneity of digestive mixed neoplasms and has created some misunderstanding among both pathologists and clinicians. In the present study, we have reviewed the literature on mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine epithelial neoplasms reported in the pituitary, thyroid, nasal cavity, larynx, lung, digestive system, urinary system, male and female genital organs, and skin to give the reader an overview of the most important clinicopathological features and morphological criteria for diagnosing each entity. We also propose to use the term "mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasm (MiNEN)" to define and to unify the concept of this heterogeneous group of neoplasms, which show different characteristics mainly depending on the type of neuroendocrine and nonneuroendocrine components.

Morphological, immunohistochemical, and chromosomal analysis of multicystic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, an architecturally unusual challenging variant

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) is typically composed of large leaf-like cells and smaller eosinophilic cells arranged in a solid-alveolar pattern. Eosinophilic, adenomatoid/pigmented, or neuroendocrine variants have also been described. We collected 10 cases of ChRCC with a distinct multicystic pattern out of 733 ChRCCs from our registry, and subsequently analyzed these by morphology, immunohistochemistry, and array comparative genomic hybridization. Of the 10 patients, 6 were males with an age range of 50-89 years (mean 68, median 69). Tumor size ranged between 1.2 and 20 cm (mean 5.32, median 3). Clinical follow-up was available for seven patients, ranging 1-19 years (mean 7.2, median 2.5). No aggressive behavior was documented. We observed two growth patterns, which were similar in all tumors: (1) variable-sized cysts, resembling multilocular cystic neoplasm of low malignant potential and (2) compressed cystic and tubular pattern with slit-like spaces. Raisinoid nuclei were consistently present while necrosis was absent in all cases. Half of the cases showed eosinophilic/oncocytic cytology, deposits of pigment (lipochrome) and microcalcifications. The other half was composed of pale or mixed cell populations. Immunostains for epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), CK7, OSCAR, CD117, parvalbumin, MIA, and Pax 8 were positive in all tumors while negative for vimentin, TFE3, CANH 9, HMB45, cathepsin K, and AMACR. Ki67 immunostain was positive in up to 1 % of neoplastic cells. Molecular genetic examination revealed multiple chromosomal losses in two fifths analyzable tumors, while three cases showed no chromosomal numerical aberrations. ChRCC are rarely arranged in a prominent multicystic pattern, which is probably an extreme form of the microcystic adenomatoid pigmented variant of ChRCC. The spectrum of tumors entering the differential diagnosis of ChRCC is quite different from that of conventional ChRCC. The immunophenotype of ChRCC is identical with that of conventional ChRCC. Chromosomal numerical aberration pattern was variable; no chromosomal numerical aberrations were found in three cases. All the cases in this series have shown an indolent and non-aggressive behavior.

Biphasic Squamoid Alveolar Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Distinctive Subtype of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma?

Biphasic squamoid alveolar renal cell carcinoma (BSARCC) has been recently described as a distinct neoplasm. Twenty-one cases from 12 institutions were analyzed using routine histology, immunohistochemistry, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Tumors were removed from 11 male and 10 female patients, whose age ranged from 53 to 79 years. The size of tumors ranged from 1.5 to 16 cm. Follow-up information was available for 14 patients (range, 1 to 96 mo), and metastatic spread was found in 5 cases. All tumors comprised 2 cell populations arranged in organoid structures: small, low-grade neoplastic cells with scant cytoplasm usually lining the inside of alveolar structures, and larger squamoid cells with more prominent cytoplasm and larger vesicular nuclei arranged in compact nests. In 9/21 tumors there was a visible transition from such solid and alveolar areas into papillary components. Areas composed of large squamoid cells comprised 10% to 80% of total tumor volume. Emperipolesis was present in all (21/21) tumors. Immunohistochemically, all cases were positive for cytokeratin 7, EMA, vimentin, and cyclin D1. aCGH (confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization) in 5 analyzable cases revealed multiple numerical chromosomal changes including gains of chromosomes 7 and 17 in all cases. These changes were further disclosed in 6 additional cases, which were unsuitable for aCGH. We conclude that tumors show a morphologic spectrum ranging from RCC with papillary architecture and large squamoid cells to fully developed BSARCC. Emperipolesis in squamoid cells was a constant finding. All BSARCCs expressed CK7, EMA, vimentin, and cyclin D1. Antibody to cyclin D1 showed a unique and previously not recognized pattern of immunohistochemical staining. Multiple chromosomal aberrations were identified in all analyzable cases including gains of chromosomes 7 and 17, indicating that they are akin to papillary RCC. Some BSARCCs were clinically aggressive, but their prognosis could not be predicted from currently available data. Present microscopic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic data strongly support the view that BSARCC is a distinctive and peculiar morphologic variant of papillary RCC.

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma of the kidney with neuroendocrine differentiation: A case report with review of literature

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is a distinctive type of malignant kidney tumor characterized by large cells with defined cell membrane. Primary renal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) are rare with morphology similar to NET at other sites. There are few case reports describing the coexistence of these 2 neoplasms within the same tumor mass. We describe a case of chRCC with neuroendocrine features in a 70-year-old male patient who presented with hematuria and right flank pain. The histological and immunohistochemical features of both components were characteristic with no overlapping features. The neuroendocrine element was associated with nodal metastasis.

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine and neuroendocrine-like features. Morphologic, immunohistochemical, ultrastructural, and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis of 18 cases and review of the literature

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (CRCC) with neuroendocrine differentiation (CRCCND) has only recently been described. Eighteen cases of CRCC with morphologic features suggestive of neuroendocrine differentiation were selected from among 624 CRCCs in our registry. The tissues were fixed in neutral formalin, embedded in paraffin, cut into 4- to 5-μm-thick sections, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. As CRCC with neuroendocrine features, tumors with following morphology were suggested: (1) trabecular/palisading/ribbon-like, gyriform, insular, glandular, and solid pattern; (2) uniform polygonal cells formed in small islets; and (3) cribriform pattern in combination with palisading. Selected cases were further analyzed using immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy, array comparative genomic hybridization, and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cases were classified as CRCCND or CRCC with neuroendocrine-like features (CRCCND-L) based on the immunohistochemical expression of neuroendocrine markers: CRCCND, 4 cases, age range 49 to 79 years, size ranged from 2.2 to 22 cm, and CRCCND-L, 14 cases, age range 34 to 74 years, size range 3.8 to 16.5 cm. Follow-up information was available for 11 of 18 patients aged 0.5 to 12 years. Two of 4 CRCCNDs showed aggressive clinical course with metastatic spreading. Chromophobe renal cell carcinomas with neuroendocrine differentiation were focally positive for CD56 (4/4), synaptophysin (4/4), chromogranin A (1/4), and neuron-specific enolase (3/4). All 14 CRCCND-Ls were mostly negative or very weakly focally positive for some of the aforementioned markers. All 18 tumors were positive for cytokeratin 7 and CD117. Ultrastructural analysis showed poorly preserved neuroendocrine granules only in 2 of 4 analyzed CRCCNDs. Losses of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, and 10 were found in all analyzable CRCCNDs, whereas multiple losses (chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 21) and gains (chromosomes 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20) were found in CRCCND-L.

Eosinophilic variant of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma is a distinct subtype of renal cell carcinoma that accounts for 5% of all renal tumors. This subtype is further subdivided into two variants, classic and eosinophilic, with the latter variant being less frequent. We report two cases of the eosinophilic variant of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma diagnosed at our institution between January 2008 and December 2012.

Two cases of eosinophilic variant chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, with a rare association of right atrial myxoma in one of them

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma is a relatively uncommon variant of renal cell carcinoma. Eosinophilic variant of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (EVCRCC) is still less frequent and is composed predominantly of small to medium-sized cells with abundant granular eosinophilic cytoplasm. We report two cases of EVCRCC, with one having a rare association of right atrial myxoma. We present these cases, due to the rarity of EVCRCC and an unusual association of right atrial myxoma in one of them. Both patients recovered well after surgery, with no recurrence or metastasis after 2 years of follow-up.

A novel case of concurrent renal tumors: chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and carcinoid tumor of the kidney with brief review of renal neuroendocrine tumors

Renal cell carcinoma of chromophobe type is a malignant neoplasm with characteristic large cells that exhibit prominent cell membranes. Primary renal carcinoid tumors are rare tumors with the histological appearance similar to well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors at other sites. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation is exceedingly rare. The authors describe a case of a chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and carcinoid tumor of the kidney presenting as distinct masses in the same kidney in a 34-year-old male. The histologic and immunohistochemical features of both the tumors were characteristic with no overlapping features. The carcinoid tumor presented at a higher stage with nodal metastasis. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first case of 2 morphologically distinct tumors, one chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and the other primary carcinoid tumor in the same kidney.

Primary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the kidney

We report a case of a 56-year-old male with a primary large cell neuroendocrine renal carcinoma. Grossly, the left kidney was enlarged by a solid tumor that measured 145 x 125 x 100 mm. Histologically, the tumor consisted of large cells with a moderate to abundant amount of eosinophilic cytoplasm. The nuclei were irregular, some of them with finely or coarsely granular chromatin, others with vesicular chromatin and prominent nucleoli. The tumor cells showed multiple mitotic figures (up to 32 mitoses/10 HPF). In some areas, the tumor cells were arranged in solid sheets; however, the predominant pattern was solid-alveolar, trabecular and cribriform. Large areas of tumor necrosis were found. Immunohistochemically, the tumor cells were positive for synaptophysin, CD56 and CD57. Cytokeratin AE1/AE3, vimentin and CD10 were positive only focally. Chromogranin showed weak cytoplasmic positivity in rare tumor cells. Cytokeratin CAM5.2, cytokeratin 34betaE12, BerEP 4, EMA, TTF-1, cytokeratin 7, cytokeratin 20, calretinin, serotonin, somatostatin, gastrin, calcitonin, glukagon and insulin were negative. Primary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the kidney is a rare tumor. To the best of our knowledge, only 3 cases of a tumor of this type have been reported to date.