Utility of cytokeratin 7 for distinguishing chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma

Scars Run Deep: Problematic Morphology and Immunoprofile of Scars in Renal Oncocytomas

In some instances, the central scar of renal oncocytoma can demonstrate entrapped cells with unusual morphology and aberrant immunoprofile creating potential diagnostic confusion. Herein, 100 renal oncocytomas containing scars with embedded epithelial cells were identified from 6 institutions, including nephrectomies (64% partial, 36% radical) of similar laterality (left = 51%) and sex distribution (male = 56%), with patient ages ranging from 38 to 86 years (mean = 64.3years) and tumor sizes ranging from 2 to 16 cm (mean = 5.3 cm). Immunohistochemistry was performed on all tumors for KRT7, KIT, vimentin, and CA9 with staining intensity and extensity separately analyzed. Of 4 architectural patterns of cells within the scar, 60% showed tubular pattern. Of 4 cytologies within the scar, flat/elongated (49%) and cuboidal cells (40%) predominated. Within the scar, 62% showed eosinophilic cytoplasm, with 38% showing both cleared and eosinophilic cytoplasm; notably, 79% showed higher grade nuclei than typical oncocytes. A subset of scar cells showed mucinous-like basophilic secretions (19%). Compared to background renal oncocytoma, tumor cells within the scar were more often positive for vimentin, KRT7, and CA9 and more frequently negativity for KIT. Specifically, of the notable "aberrant" immunoprofiles, 79% showed KRT7 positivity/KIT negativity/vimentin positive, 84% showed vimentin positivity/CA9 positivity, and 78% showed KIT negativity/vimentin positivity/CA9 positivity. While encountering scars within renal oncocytomas is not uncommon, what is not well appreciated is the unique morphology and immunohistochemistry of tumor cells within the scar. Comparing tumor morphology and immunoprofile of the scar to the background oncocytoma is helpful to avoid interpretative confusion.

NKX6-1 Is a Less Sensitive But Specific Biomarker of Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma

NKX6-1 is a transcription factor that plays a key role in the development, differentiation, and identity maintenance of beta cells of pancreatic islets. Although NKX6-1 expression has also been discovered in pancreatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WDNETs) and duodenal WDNETs, its expression in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is unexplored. Analysis of mRNA expression and immunohistochemistry of NKX6-1 was performed using the kidney cancer cohort from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and paraffin-embedded whole-tissue slides from our 196 collected cases, including 48 chRCCs (43 classic and 5 eosinophilic subtypes), 24 renal oncocytomas (ROs), 46 clear cell renal cell carcinomas, 41 papillary renal cell carcinomas, 14 renal urothelial carcinomas, 7 low-grade oncocytic renal tumors (LOTs), 8 eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinomas, 3 succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinomas, and 5 renal oncocytic tumors, not otherwise specified. NKX6-1 expression was almost exclusively upregulated in chRCC at both the mRNA and protein levels compared with other renal tumors. NKX6-1 was immunohistochemically positive in 39 of 48 (81.3%) chRCCs, but negative in 46 clear cell renal cell carcinomas, 24 ROs, 7 low-grade oncocytic renal tumors, 8 eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinomas, 3 succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinomas, and 5 renal oncocytic tumors, not otherwise specified. Diffuse, moderate, and focal NKX6-1 staining were seen in 21, 4, and 14 of the 39 chRCCs, respectively. In contrast, NKX6-1 was focally positive in only 1 of 41 (2.4%) papillary renal cell carcinomas and 2 of 14 (14.3%) renal urothelial carcinomas. Therefore, the sensitivity and specificity of NKX6-1 staining were 81.3% and 98% for chRCC, respectively. In conclusion, NKX6-1 may be a novel potential marker for differentiating chRCC from other renal neoplasms, especially from RO.

Renal Oncocytoma: The Diagnostic Challenge to Unmask the Double of Renal Cancer

Renal oncocytoma represents the most common type of benign neoplasm that is an increasing concern for urologists, oncologists, and nephrologists due to its difficult differential diagnosis and frequent overtreatment. It displays a variable neoplastic parenchymal and stromal architecture, and the defining cellular element is a large polygonal, granular, eosinophilic, mitochondria-rich cell known as an oncocyte. The real challenge in the oncocytoma treatment algorithm is related to the misdiagnosis due to its resemblance, at an initial radiological assessment, to malignant renal cancers with a completely different prognosis and medical treatment. Unfortunately, percutaneous renal biopsy is not frequently performed due to the possible side effects related to the procedure. Therefore, the majority of oncocytoma are diagnosed after the surgical operation via partial or radical nephrectomy. For this reason, new reliable strategies to solve this issue are needed. In our review, we will discuss the clinical implications of renal oncocytoma in daily clinical practice with a particular focus on the medical diagnosis and treatment and on the potential of novel promising molecular biomarkers such as circulating microRNAs to distinguish between a benign and a malignant lesion.

Low-Grade Oncocytic Tumor of Kidney (CK7-Positive, CD117-Negative): Incidence in a single institutional experience with clinicopathological and molecular characteristics

Low-grade oncocytic tumor of the kidney (LOT) is characterized by cytoplasmic eosinophilia and a CK7-positive/CD117-negative immunophenotype. Morphologically, they exhibit overlapping features with oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Our aim was to obtain long-term clinical follow-up data, clinicopathological and molecular characteristics, and incidence of LOT. Tissue microarrays were constructed from 574 tumors historically diagnosed as oncocytoma and surgically treated at Mayo Clinic between 1970 and 2012, and immunostained for CK7 and CD117. An extended immunophenotype was obtained on whole slide sections, along with FISH for CCND1 rearrangement status and chromosomal microarray for copy number status. In addition, two cases were retrospectively identified in a set of tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-associated neoplasms and three more cases diagnosed on needle core biopsies were obtained during routine clinical practice. Twenty-four cases of LOT were identified among 574 consecutive tumors diagnosed as oncocytoma and treated with partial or radical nephrectomy, corresponding to an incidence of 4.18% of tumors historically diagnosed as oncocytomas, and 0.35% of 6944 nephrectomies performed between 1970 and 2012. Overall, 29 cases of LOT were identified in three clinical settings: sporadic, TSC-associated, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Multifocality was seen only in the setting of TSC and ESRD. No metastases attributable to LOT were identified (median follow-up 9.6 years). There were no recurrent arm level copy number changes detected by chromosomal microarray and all tested cases were negative for CCND1 rearrangement by FISH. LOT is an uncommon eosinophilic renal neoplasm with an indolent prognosis that constitutes ∼4% of tumors historically diagnosed as oncocytoma. The morphologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular features of this neoplasm suggest it is a distinct entity of renal neoplasia.

Differential diagnosis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and papillary renal cell carcinoma with dual-energy spectral computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) image features of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) are, occasionally, sometimes difficult to identify. However, spectral CT might provide quantitative parameters to differentiate them.

PURPOSE

To differentiate between ChRCC and PRCC with quantitative parameters using spectral CT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty cases of RCC confirmed with pathological tests were analyzed retrospectively (27 cases of PRCC and 13 cases of ChRCC). All patients underwent non-enhanced CT and dual-phase contrast-enhanced CT scans. For each lesion, the CT value of monochromatic images as well as iodine and water concentrations were measured, and the slope of spectrum curve was calculated. Data were analyzed using Student's t-test. Sensitivity and specificity of the quantitative parameters were analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

During the cortex phase (CP) and parenchyma phase (PP), the CT value and slope of spectrum curve of ChRCC were higher than those of PRCC, and significant differences were observed at low energy levels (40-70 keV). Normalized iodine concentration of ChRCC and that of PRCC was significantly different during CP and PP (P < 0.05). The water (iodine) concentrations of ChRCC and PRCC in CP and PP were not statistically different (P > 0.05). All the ROCs for parameters were above the reference line.

CONCLUSION

Spectral CT may help increase the diagnostic accuracy of differentiating PRCC from ChRCC using a quantitative analysis.

Development of a DNA Methylation-Based Diagnostic Signature to Distinguish Benign Oncocytoma From Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE

A challenge in the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is to distinguish chromophobe RCC (chRCC) from benign renal oncocytoma, because these tumor types are histologically and morphologically similar, yet they require different clinical management. Molecular biomarkers could provide a way of distinguishing oncocytoma from chRCC, which could prevent unnecessary treatment of oncocytoma. Such biomarkers could also be applied to preoperative biopsy specimens such as needle core biopsy specimens, to avoid unnecessary surgery of oncocytoma.

METHODS

We profiled DNA methylation in fresh-frozen oncocytoma and chRCC tumors and adjacent normal tissue and used machine learning to identify a signature of differentially methylated cytosine-phosphate-guanine sites (CpGs) that robustly distinguish oncocytoma from chRCC.

RESULTS

Unsupervised clustering of Stanford and preexisting RCC data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) revealed that of all RCC subtypes, oncocytoma is most similar to chRCC. Unexpectedly, however, oncocytoma features more extensive, overall abnormal methylation than does chRCC. We identified 79 CpGs with large methylation differences between oncocytoma and chRCC. A diagnostic model trained on 30 CpGs could distinguish oncocytoma from chRCC in 10-fold cross-validation (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC], 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.00)) and could distinguish TCGA chRCCs from an independent set of oncocytomas from a previous study (AUC, 0.87). This signature also separated oncocytoma from other RCC subtypes and normal tissue, revealing it as a standalone diagnostic biomarker for oncocytoma.

CONCLUSION

This CpG signature could be developed as a clinical biomarker to support differential diagnosis of oncocytoma and chRCC in surgical samples. With improved biopsy techniques, this signature could be applied to preoperative biopsy specimens.

Mass Spectrometry Imaging Differentiates Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma and Renal Oncocytoma with High Accuracy

Background: While subtyping of the majority of malignant chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (cRCC) and benign renal oncocytoma (rO) is possible on morphology alone, additional histochemical, immunohistochemical or molecular investigations are required in a subset of cases. As currently used histochemical and immunohistological stains as well as genetic aberrations show considerable overlap in both tumors, additional techniques are required for differential diagnostics. Mass spectrometry imaging (MSI) combining the detection of multiple peptides with information about their localization in tissue may be a suitable technology to overcome this diagnostic challenge.

Patients and Methods: Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens from cRCC (n=71) and rO (n=64) were analyzed by MSI. Data were classified by linear discriminant analysis (LDA), classification and regression trees (CART), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF) algorithm with internal cross validation and visualized by t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE). Most important variables for classification were identified and the classification algorithm was optimized.

Results: Applying different machine learning algorithms on all m/z peaks, classification accuracy between cRCC and rO was 85%, 82%, 84%, 77% and 64% for RF, SVM, KNN, CART and LDA. Under the assumption that a reduction of m/z peaks would lead to improved classification accuracy, m/z peaks were ranked based on their variable importance. Reduction to six most important m/z peaks resulted in improved accuracy of 89%, 85%, 85% and 85% for RF, SVM, KNN, and LDA and remained at the level of 77% for CART. t-SNE showed clear separation of cRCC and rO after algorithm improvement.

Conclusion: In summary, we acquired MSI data on FFPE tissue specimens of cRCC and rO, performed classification and detected most relevant biomarkers for the differential diagnosis of both diseases. MSI data might be a useful adjunct method in the differential diagnosis of cRCC and rO.

Combined Immunohistochemistry for the "Three 7" Markers (CK7, CD117, and Claudin-7) Is Useful in the Diagnosis of Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma and for the Exclusion of Mimics: Diagnostic Experience from a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

There is a morphological overlap among renal epithelial tumors, particularly chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (CHRCC), clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), renal oncocytoma (RO), and papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Discriminating between these tumors is important but sometimes challenging. This study is aimed at evaluating the clinical usefulness of the combined immunochemistry for the "three 7" markers (CK7, CD117, and Claudin-7) to distinguish chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from these mimics.

METHODS

Immunochemical staining for CK7, CD117, and Claudin-7 was performed in 68 CHRCCs, 199 CCRCCs, 32 ROs, and 30 PRCCs. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed in some cases to exclude CCRCC and PRCC. The sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) for CHRCC as well as the immunoreactivity of each marker and their combinations were statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

High positive rates for CK7 (94%), CD117 (87%), Claudin-7 (94%), and their combinations (CK7+CD117, 79%; CK7+Claudin-7, 88%; CD117+Claudin-7, 82%; CK7+CD117+Claudin-7, 76%) were observed in CHRCC compared to those in CCRCC, RO, and PRCC, with increasingly higher SP when combinations of the "three 7" markers were applied (CK7, 0.80; CD117, 0.82; Claudin-7, 0.78; CK7+CD117, 0.95; CK7+Claudin-7, 0.97; CD117+Claudin-7, 0.97; CK7+CD117+Claudin-7, 1).

CONCLUSION

CK7, CD117, and Claudin-7 are frequently expressed in CHRCC with high specificity. We recommend the routine use of these 3 markers as a routine panel when making a differential diagnosis of CHRCC and excluding other mimics.

Utility of cytokeratin 7, S100A1 and caveolin-1 as immunohistochemical biomarkers to differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma

Background

Differentiation of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) from benign renal oncocytoma (RO) can be challenging especially when there are overlapping histological and morphological features. In this study we have investigated immunohistochemical biomarkers (cytokeratin 7/CK7, Caveolin-1/Cav-1 and S100 calcium-binding protein A1/S100A1) to aid in this difficult differentiation and attempted to validate their use in human renal tumour tissue to assess their discriminatory ability, particularly for chRCC and RO, in an Australian cohort of patients.

Methods

Retrospective study was carried out of archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded renal tumours from tumour nephrectomy specimens of 75 patients: 30 chRCC, 15 RO and 30 clear cell RCC (ccRCC). Sections were cut and immunostained with specific polyclonal antibodies of CK7, Cav-1 and S100A1. Morphometry was used to determine expression patterns of the biomarkers using Aperio ImageScope. Results were assessed with student t-test and ANOVA with significance at P<0.05.

Results

From this cohort, male-to-female ratio was 1.9:1. Median age was 64 (45-88 years) and median tumour size was 3.8 cm (range, 1.2-18 cm). There were 47 (62.7%) T1, 7 T2, 20 T3 and one T4 stage of RCC; with 2 patients presenting with M1 stage. There was significantly higher CK7 expression in chRCC compared to RO (P=0.03), and chRCC also had a different staining pattern and higher expression of Cav-1 compared to RO. There was higher expression of S100A1 in RO compared to chRCC.

Conclusions

Immunohistochemical staining and standard morphometry of CK7, Cav-1 and S100A1 can aid in the differentiation of chRCC and RO. This may guide clinicians in management of patients when faced with difficult diagnostic histological distinction between the two tumour subtypes.

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

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

Leptin and its receptor: can they help to differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma?

One of the challenges in differentiating chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) from benign renal oncocytoma (RO) is overlapping morphology between the two subtypes. The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of expression of leptin (Ob) and its receptor (ObR) in discriminating chRCC from RO. Sections from paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tumour nephrectomy specimens of 45 patients, made up of 30 chRCC (15 eosinophilic variant and 15 non-eosinophilic variant) and 15 RO, were used in this study. Samples (30) of clear cell RCC (ccRCC), the most common histological subtype, were used to verify staining patterns found by others in our cohort of Australasian patients. Matched morphologically normal non-cancer kidney tissues were included for each specimen. Sections were batch-immunostained using antibodies against Ob and ObR. Stained sections were digitally scanned using Aperio ImageScope, and the expression pattern of Ob and ObR was studied. In this cohort, male to female ratio was 2:1; median age was 64 (45-88 years); and median tumour size was 3.8 cm (range 1.2-18 cm). There were 47 (62.7%) T1, seven T2, 20 T3 and one T4 stage RCC. Two patients with ccRCC presented with metastases. Nuclear expression of Ob was significantly higher in RO compared with chRCC. The increased nuclear expression of Ob in RO compared with chRCC may be a useful aid in the difficult histological differentiation of RO from chRCC, especially eosinophilic variants of chRCC.

Erythrocytosis caused by giant chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a case report indicating a 9-year misdiagnosis of polycythemia vera

Background

Erythrocytosis, a rare paraneoplastic syndrome, generally occurs in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma and has never been reported in patients with chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

Case presentation

We report a case of a young man suffering from a giant (22-cm) mass on his left kidney. Because of a history of polycythemia vera, the patient had been treated for the condition for 9 years. Radical nephrectomy was successfully performed, and the postoperative pathologic examination confirmed a diagnosis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Unexpectedly, the symptom of erythrocytosis disappeared after the surgery. Further examination and analysis were performed, and we finally attributed his erythrocytosis to chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

Conclusions

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma could cause erythrocytosis, but the clear-cut mechanism needs further research. Secondary erythrocytosis such as those related with renal tumors should be taken into consideration during the diagnosis of polycythemia vera.

Practical Applications of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Genitourinary Tumors

Context.—

Pathologic diagnosis of tumors in the genitourinary system can be challenging based on morphology alone, particularly when diagnostic material is limited, such as in core biopsies. Immunohistochemical stain can be a useful tool to aid in the diagnosis.

Objective.—

To provide an update on practical applications and interpretation of immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis of tumors in prostate, kidney, bladder, and testis. We particularly focus on difficult differential diagnoses, providing our insights in frequently encountered challenging situations. Commonly used immunohistochemical panels are discussed.

Data Sources.—

Review of literature and our own experience.

Conclusion.—

Immunohistochemical stain is a valuable tool in the diagnosis of genitourinary tumors when appropriately used.

Renal oncocytoma: A report of two cases and review of the literature

Renal oncocytoma is one of the most unusual benign lesion, which are usually diagnosed postoperatively, since their differentiation from renal cell carcinoma is challenging. The present study reports two cases of renal oncocytoma in a 60-year-old woman and a 46-year-old man. Relevant clinical and pathological data on the two patients were retrieved. The tumors were excised and the patients underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. Typical features of oncocytoma were observed upon histological examination of the excised specimens. The postoperative course of each patient was uneventful and they were discharged 8 and 7 days post-surgery, respectively. In addition, the current study presents the results of a literature review regarding the radiological, immunohistochemical and pathological characteristics of renal oncocytoma.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of immunohistochemical biomarkers that differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma

BACKGROUND

Numerous immunohistochemical (IHC) biomarkers have been employed to aid in the difficult differentiation between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) and renal oncocytoma (RO). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was carried out to summarise and analyse the evidence for discriminatory IHC biomarkers to differentiate the two entities.

METHODS

PubMed database was used to identify relevant literature. Primary end point was comparison of positive immunostaining of the biomarkers in chRCC and RO, with extracted data used to calculate OR and 95% CI and statistical I(2) test of heterogeneity for multiple studies.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine manuscripts were available for review. Data extracted were subjected to quantitative meta-analysis. Ten most effective biomarkers (OR of chRCC/RO and CI) are: amylase α1A (n=129, OR=0.001, 95% CI 0.0001 to 0.019); Wnt-5a (n=38, OR=0.0076, 95% CI 0.0004 to 0.015); FXYD2 (n=57, OR=130, 95% CI 14.2 to 1192.3); ankyrin-repeated protein with a proline-rich region (ARPP) (n=25, OR=0.0054, 95% CI 0.0002 to 0.12); cluster of differentiation 63 (CD63) (n=62, diffuse (chRCC) vs apical/polar (RO) stain pattern); transforming growth factor β 1 (TGFβ1) (n=34, membranous (chRCC) vs cytoplasmic (RO)); cytokeratin 7 (CK7) (11 studies, n=448, pooled OR=44.22, 95% CI 22.52 to 86.64, I(2)=15%); S100A1 (4 studies, n=124, pooled OR=0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.03, I(2)=0%); caveolin-1 (2 studies, n=102, pooled OR=32.95, 95% CI 3.67 to 296.1, I(2)=70%) and claudin-7 (3 studies, n=89, pooled OR=24.7, 95% CI 6.28 to 97.1, I(2)=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a panel of IHC biomarkers of amylase α1A, Wnt-5a, FXYD2, ARPP, CD63, TGFβ1, CK7, S100A1, caveolin-1 and claudin-7 to aid in the differentiation of chRCC and RO.

Immunohistochemical analysis of cytochrome C oxidase facilitates differentiation between oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

In this study, immunohistochemical staining pattern of cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (CCO1) was investigated in the differentiation of renal oncocytoma (RO) from eosinophilic (EoC) and classic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC). A feature found in ChRCC/EoC but not in RO is the predominance of a perinuclear halo when stained for CCO1. In a cohort of 103 mixed cases including 44 RO, 37 classic ChRCC and 22 EoC, the diagnosis based on this immunohistochemical feature alone was consistent with the previous routine diagnosis in 95.7%. We reached 100% specificity and 81.4% sensitivity of this pattern in ChRCC. Specificity for RO was 93.2% and sensitivity correspondingly 95.5%. We propose a novel and easily interpretable immunohistochemical method for the discrimination of benign RO from certain subtypes of malignant ChRCC. Because of strong similarity in morphology of the 2 entities the diagnosis often cannot be made based on standard histopathology alone. The study describes for the first time the formation of a perinuclear halo in CCO1 immunohistochemistry as a highly specific marker for the diagnosis of ChRCC. We think this method can be a strong amendment for routine diagnostics in renal cell carcinoma.

Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma: detailed characterization of 11 tumors defining a unique subtype of renal cell carcinoma

Patients with germline mutation of succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) subunit genes are prone to develop paraganglioma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and rarely renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, SDH-deficient RCC is not yet widely recognized. We identified such tumors by distinctive morphology and confirmed absence of immunohistochemical staining for SDHB. Immunohistochemical features were evaluated using a panel of antibodies to renal tumor antigens. Targeted next-generation sequencing was performed on DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded tissue. Eleven tumors were identified from 10 patients, 22-72 years of age (median 40). Two patients had paragangliomas, 1 bilateral SDH-deficient RCC, and 1 contralateral oncocytoma. Grossly, tumors were tan or red-brown, 2-20 cm in diameter (median 4.25 cm). Fuhrman grade was 2 (n=10) or 3 (n=1). Stage was pT1a-pT2b. One patient developed widespread metastases 16 years after nephrectomy and died of disease 6 years later. All tumors were composed of uniform eosinophilic cells containing vacuoles or flocculent cytoplasmic inclusions. Architecture was primarily solid; entrapped renal tubules and intratumoral mast cells were common. By immunohistochemistry, tumor cells were negative for SDHB (11/11) and rarely SDHA (1/11). Labeling was uniformly positive for PAX8 and kidney-specific cadherin and absent for KIT, RCC, and carbonic anhydrase IX. Staining for broad-spectrum epithelial markers was often negative or focal (positive staining for AE1/AE3 in 4/10, CAM5.2 3/7, CK7 1/11, EMA 10/10). By sequencing, SDHB mutation and loss of the second allele were present in 5/6 tumors; the SDHA-deficient tumor showed no SDHB abnormality. SDH-deficient RCC is a unique neoplasm that is capable of progression, often harboring SDHB mutation. A monomorphic oncocytic renal tumor with solid architecture, cytoplasmic inclusions of flocculent material, and intratumoral mast cells should prompt evaluation of SDH status, as it may have implications for screening the patient and relatives. Negative immunohistochemistry for KIT and heterogeneous labeling for epithelial antigens are other supportive features.

Renal tumors: diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers

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

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

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

Expression of the Na+/K+-transporting ATPase gamma subunit FXYD2 in renal tumors

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a form of renal cancer that may be confused with other eosinophilic renal tumors, including oncocytoma, type 2 papillary RCC, and clear-cell RCC with eosinophilic features. There are currently no robust markers to distinguish these neoplasms. Chromophobe RCC and renal oncocytoma are presumably derived from the distal nephron. FXYD2 is a distal tubule regulator of the trimeric Na(+/)K(+)-transporting ATPase that is enriched in kidney tissue. In this study, we investigated the expression of FXYD2 in normal human kidney, 27 chromophobe RCCs, 30 oncocytomas, 15 clear-cell RCCs, and 11 papillary RCCs. Immunohistochemical staining for FXYD2 showed diffuse, strong immunoreactivity in the basolateral membrane of distal tubules of normal human kidney. Ninety-six percent (26/27) of chromophobe RCCs were immunoreactive for FXYD2 in a distinctly membranous pattern. Twenty-five of these tumors showed at least focal 2+ staining. In contrast, only 17% (5/30) of renal oncocytomas, 11% (2/15) of clear-cell RCCs, and 0% (0/11) of papillary RCCs displayed FXYD2 immunoreactivity. None of these cases showed ≥2+ FXYD2 staining. A subset of cases was confirmed as oncocytoma or chromophobe RCC using cytokeratin 7, colloidal iron, and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 10, and 17. Among this subset, 100% (7/7) of chromophobe RCCs were FXYD2 positive, whereas 17% (2/12) of oncocytomas were stained with FXYD2. The oncocytomas that stained with FXYD2 did so in a weak (1+), patchy manner. In contrast, chromophobe RCCs showed ≥2+ staining in 86% (6/7) of these tumors. For comparison, this subset was also stained for kidney-specific cadherin (Ksp-cadherin). Ksp-cadherin showed positive staining in 100% (7/7) of chromophobe RCCs and 33% (4/12) of oncocytomas. This is the first report demonstrating the potential utility of FXYD2 immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of chromophobe RCC.

CD10+ and CK7/RON- immunophenotype distinguishes renal cell carcinoma, conventional type with eosinophilic morphology from its mimickers

BACKGROUND

The distinction between renal cell carcinoma conventional (clear cell) type with eosinophilic morphology (ccRCC), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma eosinophilic variant (chRCC), and renal oncocytoma (RO) is a common diagnostic dilemma. We aimed to identify an immunohistochemical panel to discriminate ccRCC from its morphologic mimics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-three renal neoplasms (19 ccRCC, 18 chRCC, and 16 RO) were selected. Immunohistochemical stains for CD10, cytokeratin 7 (CK7), c-Kit, E-cadherin, N-cadherin, kidney-specific cadherin (Ksp-cadherin), and Recepteur d'origine nantais (RON) were performed.

RESULTS

Ten (53%) of 19 ccRCC were positive for CD10, 11 (58%) for E-cadherin, 8 (42%) for N-cadherin, 5 (26%) for Ksp-cadherin, 9 (47%) for RON, 6 (32%) for CK7, and 5 (26%) for c-Kit. In chRCC/RO group, 5 of 34 (15%) were positive for CD10, 32 (94%) for E-cadherin, 2 (6%) for N-cadherin, 1 (3%) for Ksp-cadherin, 22 (65%) for RON, 14 (41%) for CK7, and 25 (25/32, 76%) for c-kit. Univariately, negative c-Kit [odds ratio (OR)=8.75, P=0.001, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.747], negative E-cadherin (OR=11.64, P=0.005, AUC=0.681), positive N-cadherin (OR=11.64, P=0.005, AUC=0.681), positive Ksp-cadherin (OR=11.79, P=0.031, AUC=0.617), and positive CD10 (OR=6.44, P=0.005, AUC=0.690) detects ccRCC versus chRCC/RO. Multivariate analysis showed significant association between CD10 positivity and ccRCC (OR=16.90, P=0.007) and between RON negativity and ccRCC (OR=7.17, P=0.047) when CK7 is negative.

CONCLUSIONS

The best single predictors for ccRCC are negative c-Kit, negative E-cadherin, positive N-cadherin, positive Ksp-cadherin, and positive CD10. However, considering the studied markers, a combination of positive CD10 and negative CK7 and RON is considered the best immunohistochemical panel in distinguishing ccRCC from chRCC/RO.

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.

Malignant effusion of chromophobe renal-cell carcinoma: cytological and immunohistochemical findings

Malignant effusions because of renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) are an unusual event and occur in patients with papillary and clear cell tumors. We have studied a 65-year-old man who underwent right renal tumorectomy, diagnosed as chromophobe RCC (pT1). After 16 months, the patient presented cough and fever. Positron emission computed tomography demonstrated extensive mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Chest radiograph showed right pleural effusion. The cytological examination of the fluid showed malignant cells. Immunohistochemistry had been performed on primary renal tumor and on cell block of pleural effusion. The renal tumor showed positivity for parvalbumin, cytokeratin (CK) 7, C-kit (CD117), E-cadherin, and RCC marker. The neoplastic cells of pleural effusion showed positive immunohistochemical staining for parvalbumin, RCC marker, pancytokeratin, epithelial membrane antigen, CK7, C-kit (CD117), E-cadherin, and CD10. They were negative for thyroid transcription factor-1, CK20, calretinin, CK5, D2-40 podoplanin, CDX2, and Wilms' tumor suppressor gene. Malignant effusion secondary to RCC is rare. In several studies, RCC had been the cause of 1-2.2% of malignant pleural fluids. Chromophobe RCC tends to be localized into the kidney and to be of nuclear grade 2 at presentation, factors that probably explain its more favorable outlook. In our case, the chromophobe RCC was asymptomatic and was discovered because abdominal pain due to stone in the gallbladder. The tumor had an unusual aggressive clinical behavior. Immunohistochemistry performed on the cell block let to establish the renal origin and the chromophobe histotype of malignant cells found in the pleural fluid.

Renal oncocytoma revisited: a clinicopathological study of 109 cases with emphasis on problematic diagnostic features

AIM

To evaluate problematic diagnostic features in renal oncocytoma.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred and nine cases of oncocytoma were reviewed and the problematic gross and microscopic features recorded. Multifocal and bilateral neoplasms were found in 12 (11%) and five (4.6%) cases, respectively. Haemorrhage was seen grossly in 30 (27.5%) neoplasms and a central scar was identified in 35 (32.1%). On microscopy, perinephric fat extension was present in 17 (15.6%) neoplasms and vascular extension was identified in four (3.7%) oncocytomas. Rare mitoses and focal coagulative necrosis were identified in two (1.8%) cases each. Focal clear cell changes were found in 16 (14.7%) oncocytomas, typically within hyalinized areas. Limited foci with chromophobe-like histology (not exceeding 5% of the neoplasm) were found in 13 (11.9%) oncocytomas. In 12 (11%) oncocytomas, rare papillary formations were noted in the lumina of microcysts. Significant nuclear atypia, oncoblasts and entrapped tubules were identified in 27 (24.8%), 41 (37.6%) and 40 (36.7%) neoplasms, respectively. After a median follow-up of 52 months (range 1-113 months), there was no disease recurrence, progression or death attributed to oncocytoma.

CONCLUSIONS

The recognition of the spectrum of morphological changes observed in renal oncocytoma should help pathologists establish a diagnosis of oncocytoma in problematic cases.

Exploring the Potential of Immunohistochemistry to Identify Renal Oncocytoma

Objective:

To determine the potential for a novel immunohistochemistry panel to accurately distinguish oncocytoma from other renal tumour subtypes.

Material and methods:

Forty renal tumours removed by surgery between 2000 and 2006 in a single tertiary referral centre in the UK were studied retrospectively. Paraffin blocks from 10 each of oncocytoma, papillary RCC, clear cell RCC and chromophobe RCC were examined. The tumours were tested using a panel of antibodies comprising CK7, CK18, CD15, N-cadherin, E-cadherin and EpCAM. The primary outcome measure was the number of each tumour type staining positively with each marker. The immunohistochemistry marker was considered to be positive if more than 10% of the tumour cells stained positively. No staining or focal staining (<10% of the tumour cells) was considered a negative test.

Results:

CK7, CD15 and EpCAM were able to distinguish between renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC: no oncocytoma stained with either CK7 or EpCAM, however 7/10 (70%) stained positive for CD15. Conversely, 8/10 (80%) chromophobe RCC stained positive with CK7 and EpCAM but none stained for CD15.

Conclusions:

In this preliminary study the immunohistochemistry panel shows promise in differentiating between renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. The panel deserves prospective evaluation on needle biopsy specimens.

Molecular pathology of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a review

The recognition of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) among other distinct types of renal cell tumors (RCT) based on light-microscopic features, such as cytoplasmic and nuclear characteristics, might pose a dilemma in some cases because of morphological pattern overlapping with renal oncocytoma or conventional RCC. The present article reviews chromophobe RCC with focus on aspects of its molecular pathology, which was shown using ancillary modern microarray-based technology that can distinguish it from its mimics and therefore be helpful for its correct diagnosis. Although the high resolution DNA-microarray analyses excluded with all certainty the occurrence of small specific alterations, the loss of entire chromosomes 2, 10, 13, 17 and 21 occurs exclusively in chromophobe RCC and therefore probes localized at these chromosomes might be used to establish the diagnosis of chromophobe RCC in cases with uncertain histology. The usefulness of proposed candidate genes selected by the global gene expression analyses in the diagnostic pathology is far below expectations. The conflicting staining patterns, together with the poor specificity of used antibodies, leads us to believe that these candidate immunomarkers might not help in the separation of chromophobe RCC, with the exception of CD82, which has recently been suggested to be used for routine histological diagnosis.

Use of electron microscopy in core biopsy diagnosis of oncocytic renal tumors

The distinction between oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, important clinically, may be challenging, especially as the tissue sample size decreases. Ancillary studies can be helpful, although subject to interpretation and sample variability. The aim of this study was to examine the value of electron microscopy in differentiating between oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma on formalin fixed paraffin embedded needle core biopsies. Twenty renal needle core biopsies were evaluated. Despite formalin fixation and paraffin embedding, the classic ultrastructural features of these neoplasms were retained, revealing 80% sensitivity and 100% specificity by initial work-up.

Renal cell cancer without a renal primary

Renal cell carcinoma has been increasing in incidence over the past two decades. Men are affected more than women and metastatic disease at presentation occurs in up to one third of patients. Metastasis can occur to virtually any organ, and involvement of multiple organs is not uncommon. To date, no reports have been found of metastatic disease without a renal primary. We present a case of renal cell cancer initially presenting as a subcutaneous mass with subsequent pancreatic and parotid gland metastases in absence of a primary renal source.

Biopsy of renal masses: when and why

Percutaneous image-guided biopsy of renal masses is a safe and accurate procedure. Although once reserved for the diagnosis of unresectable renal cell carcinoma, metastases, lymphoma, and infection, today percutaneous image-guided biopsy has an expanded role. There is increasing awareness that a substantial proportion of small, solid renal masses are benign neoplasms. Although imaging can be used to diagnose most of them, some are incorrectly believed to represent renal cell carcinoma and unnecessary surgery may be performed. Based largely on advances in cytological techniques, percutaneous biopsy can be now be used to diagnose benign neoplasms and thus prevent them from being treated unnecessarily. Concurrent advances in percutaneous ablation have also promoted its use. As a result, there are 8 established indications for percutaneous biopsy, and reason to believe that the number of indications will expand further in the future.

Sub-typing of renal cell tumours; contribution of ancillary techniques

Background

Adult renal epithelial neoplasms are a heterogeneous group with varying prognosis and outcome requiring sub-classification.

Methods

Cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a 10 years period were analyzed with regard to the clinical features and histology. Sections were reviewed by four pathologists and the discordant cases were resolved with the help of Hale's colloidal iron stain, vimentin, CK 7, and vinculin immunostains and electron microscopy.

Results

Amongst the total of 278 cases, clear cell renal cell carcinoma was the commonest tumor with 74.8% cases, followed by papillary RCC 12.2%, chromophobe RCC 7.9%, oncocytoma 1.8%, and one case of collecting duct RCC. Eight cases were of sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma. In 28/278 cases, diagnoses varied amongst the four pathologists and the discordance was resolved by Hale's colloidal iron stain, CK7 immunostain and electron microscopy. Vimentin and vinculin did not contribute much in differentiating subtypes of renal cell carcinomas. Relative incidence of sub-types of RCCs was compared with other series

Conclusion

To accurately subclassify renal cell carcinomas, simple ancillary techniques would possibly resolve all difficult cases. The relative incidence of sub-types of renal cell carcinoma is relatively consistent the world over. However, in India, RCCs afflict the patients two decades earlier.

Diagnostic problems in the subtyping of renal tumors encountered by five pathologists

The diagnostic problems in the subtyping of renal tumors were evaluated by a panel of five pathologists studying a set of selected tumors. Five pathologists independently assessed a single hematoxylin-and-eosin (HE)-stained slide from 28 selected renal tumors. After this independent assessment, the pathologists reevaluated and discussed all discordant cases. Additional HE-stained sections and immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides were available. The generalized kappa for interobserver agreement was calculated. After independent assessment of the HE-stained slides, the five pathologists unanimously reached an agreement in the decision between malignant and benign in 82% of the cases. Fifty percent of the cases were correctly subclassified. The overall generalized kappa value for the five pathologists was 0.320 (CI 95% 0.090-0.551), which is considered a moderate agreement. A 100% agreement was reached for all 28 cases after examination of more slides from different tumor areas and IHC-stained sections. An accurate histologic distinction between benign and malignant renal tumors is possible on one HE-stained section. Correct assignment of the subtype is difficult on one slide alone and relies on IHC-markers and additional slides. Tumors composed of an eosinophilic cell type and tumors with a papillary growth pattern were the major causes of an incorrect diagnosis on an HE-stained section alone.

Molecular diagnosis of renal cell neoplasms: the usefulness of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization

BACKGROUND

The classification of renal cell neoplasms includes different subtypes of tumors characterized by different outcome. Some overlapping morphological features and the increasing recognition of new entities are making the traditional histologic distinction of renal cell neoplasms difficult and more tools improving the specificity of the correct identification are needed. Among molecular analyses, immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization have become the most helpful procedures, solving many issues in the differential diagnosis of the renal cell neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to merge the large amount of recent knowledge regarding molecular markers of renal cell neoplasms into a helpful diagnostic algorithm.

CONCLUSION

It is proposed that immunoreactions for CD10, Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, cytokeratin 7, parvalbumin and S100A1, and the cytogenetical analysis of chromosomes 3p, 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 17 and Y can now offer the most specific tools for the classification of renal cell tumors.

Renal oncocytoma: clinical experience of Taipei Veterans General Hospital

BACKGROUND

Renal oncocytoma has been reported mostly in the Western literature, and only a few cases have been reported in Eastern populations. In the present study, we review the clinical course of renal oncocytoma in our institution.

METHODS

We obtained the files of 13 cases of renal oncocytoma between 1988 and 2006 from the pathological archives of Taipei Veterans General Hospital. We retrospectively analyzed the patients' characteristics, clinical manifestations, surgical technique and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 10 men and 3 women, and the mean age at diagnosis was 59.6 years (range, 37-75 years). Twelve patients (92%) were asymptomatic at presentation and were incidentally diagnosed to have renal tumor by sonography (9 patients), computed tomography (1 patient) or magnetic resonance imaging (2 patients), and 1 presented with hematuria. The clinical impression of oncocytoma was made preoperatively in only 3 patients by imaging studies, and most of the patients (76.9%) were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma before surgery. Ten were treated with radical nephrectomy, 2 with partial nephrectomy, and 1 received excisional biopsy. All patients had unilateral solitary renal tumor; the right kidney was involved in 7 cases (54%) and the left in 6 (46%). Mean tumor size was 5.3 cm (range, 2.7-8.5 cm). Three patients were lost to follow-up in our series, and there was no recurrence or death (100% disease-specific survival) in the remaining 10 patients (77%) who were followed-up for a mean duration of 53.2 months (range, 10-117 months).

CONCLUSION

Renal oncocytoma has a benign clinical course with excellent long-term outcomes. Currently, nephron-sparing surgery is the mainstay of treatment, especially in patients with small tumors. However, accurate preoperative diagnosis based only on imaging studies is difficult, and radical nephrectomy was performed for most of the patients in our series.

[Ancillary studies in the differential diagnosis of epithelial renal cell tumors with granular cells]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms with granular cells may pose difficulties and implications on ontogeny and prognosis. Our aims are to characterize the pattern of immunostaining and to search for a useful diagnosis panel.

METHODS

We studied with colloidal iron staining (Mowry's modified method) and 22 commonly used immunomarkers 22 conventional carcinomas (CC), 37 chromophobe carcinomas (CPC), 8 oncocytomas (OC), and 7 collecting duct carcinomas (CDC) with granular cells. Cases with not entirely clear diagnosis were excluded.

RESULTS

Colloidal iron staining was diffuse, strong, reticular, and cytoplasmic in 32 CPC cases, the diffuse and strong pattern was not observed in other tumors. The more useful diagnostic panel was cytokeratin 7 (CK7)/CD10/vimentine (vim). The 8 OC were negative for the three antibodies. The most common profile for CC was CK7-/CD10+/vim+, the CPC profile was CK7+/CD10-/vim-, and CDC did not show a particular profile. With these three antibodies specificity was >90% for the differential diagnosis. Adding colloidal iron staining specificity was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphologic features, colloidal iron staining (modified Mowry's method), and immunostaining with CK7/CD10/vim permit the final diagnosis with high specificity. However, a 100% specific marker does not exist at the present time.

Vimentin reactivity in renal oncocytoma: immunohistochemical study of 234 cases

CONTEXT

The expression of vimentin in benign renal oncocytomas has been controversial. However, this is of clinical significance because immunostains may be used in differential diagnosis of renal tumors on limited biopsy specimens. Using different staining and analysis methods, we studied vimentin immunoreactivity in a large series of renal oncocytomas with a special emphasis on the immunoreactivity patterns.

OBJECTIVE

Immunohistochemical expression of vimentin has been used in the differential diagnosis of renal epithelial neoplasms. Although typically expressed in most renal cell carcinomas, the immunoreactivity of this intermediate filament in renal oncocytomas has been controversial.

DESIGN

We studied vimentin immunoreactivity in a large series of 234 renal oncocytomas using 2 staining methods as well as manual and automated imaging analyses.

RESULTS

We found that the focal vimentin immunoreactivity can be seen in most (72.6%) renal oncocytomas with vimentin-positive tumor cells usually found in the edge of a central scar or in small clusters scattered throughout the tumor. Computer-aided imaging analysis using ChromaVision Automatic Cellular Imaging System II confirmed the difference in vimentin immunoreactivity between oncocytoma and other renal neoplasms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study of vimentin immunohistochemistry in a series of renal oncocytomas, which to our knowledge is the largest ever published, showed focal vimentin positivity detected in most oncocytomas. Because the vimentin staining patterns in renal oncocytomas are different from those seen in clear cell or papillary renal cell carcinomas, we consider vimentin staining to be helpful in the differential diagnosis of oncocytoma from other renal tumor mimics. Furthermore, strong vimentin positivity in a renal cell neoplasm does not exclude the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma, particularly in a limited biopsy specimen.

Immunohistochemical analysis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, renal oncocytoma, and clear cell carcinoma: an optimal and practical panel for differential diagnosis

CONTEXT

The separation of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, oncocytoma, and clear cell renal cell carcinoma using light microscopy remains problematic in some cases.

OBJECTIVE

To determine a practical immunohistochemical panel for the differential diagnosis of chromophobe carcinoma.

DESIGN

Vimentin, glutathione S-transferase alpha (GST-alpha), CD10, CD117, cytokeratin (CK) 7, and epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) were investigated in 22 cases of chromophobe carcinoma, 17 cases of oncocytoma, and 45 cases of clear cell carcinoma.

RESULTS

Vimentin and GST-alpha expression were exclusively observed in clear cell carcinoma. CD10 staining was more frequently detected in clear cell carcinoma (91%) than in chromophobe carcinoma (45%) and oncocytoma (29%). CD117 was strongly expressed in chromophobe carcinoma (82%) and oncocytoma (100%), whereas none of the cases of clear cell carcinomas were immunoreactive. Cytokeratin 7 was positive in 18 (86%) of 22 cases of chromophobe carcinoma, whereas all oncocytomas were negative for CK7. EpCAM protein was expressed in all 22 cases of chromophobe carcinoma in more than 90% of cells, whereas all EpCAM-positive oncocytomas (5/17; 29%) displayed positivity in single cells or small cell clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the combination of 3 markers (vimentin, GST-alpha, and EpCAM), we achieved 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the differential diagnosis of chromophobe carcinoma, oncocytoma, and clear cell carcinoma. The pattern of "vimentin(-)/GST-alpha(-)" effectively excluded clear cell carcinoma, and homogeneous EpCAM expression confirmed the diagnosis of chromophobe carcinoma rather than oncocytoma. CD117 and CK7 were also useful markers and could be used as second-line markers for the differential diagnosis, with high specificity (100%) and high sensitivity (90% and 86%, respectively).

An immunohistochemical approach to the differential diagnosis of renal tumors

Renal neoplasms comprise several distinct clinicopathologic entities with potential prognostic and the rapeutic differences. Although careful morphologic examination using sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin will allow for the correct diagnosis in the majority of cases, there is sufficient overlap between several entities such that ancillary techniques may be necessary to arrive at the correct diagnosis. In routine diagnostic surgical pathology practice of renal tumors, immunohistochemistry is the foremost ancillary technique. Using an approach based on common histologic patterns (tumors with clear cytoplasm, granular cytoplasm, tubulopapillary architecture, spindle cell morphology, small round-cell morphology, and infiltrating poorly differentiated carcinoma), we will discuss the utility of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms. In recent years, needle biopsies from renal masses are being increasingly performed. In these small biopsies, the entire range of cytoarchitectural features that are generally necessary to make a diagnosis may not be fully appreciated. Immunohistochemistry may be helpful in this setting to narrow the differential diagnosis or to arrive at a definitive diagnosis. Finally, the use of immunohistochemistry for the confirmation of metastatic renal cell carcinoma presenting at distant sites will be discussed. Panels of immunohistochemical stains are proposed for different settings, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC) marker, CD10, and vimentin to suggest renal origin of a metastatic tumor, and markers to aid in subclassification of RCC, including parvalbumin and c-kit for chromophobe RCC, and cytokeratin 7 and alpha-methyl-acyl-CoA racemase for papillary RCC.

Renal oncocytoma with loss of chromosomes Y and 1 evolving to papillary carcinoma in connection with gain of chromosome 7. Coincidence or progression?

Hybrid tumors of the kidney are not rare. Previous studies of hybrid renal tumors have been valuable for the understanding of the pathogenesis and progression pathways of renal cell neoplasm. In this paper we describe the morphologic, immunohistochemical, and genetic features of 2 oncocytomas with evolving papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) in a nephrectomy specimen of a 60-year old male. The patient was referred for urologic oncology consultation after the incidental discovery of a renal tumor. Nephrectomy was performed and two separate masses were present grossly. The tumors were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, cytokeratin 7 and vimentin. Genetic studies included conventional metaphase cytogenetics and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Morphologically, both tumors were oncocytomas with numerous microscopic papillary nests and psammoma bodies. Papillary carcinoma nests were highlighted with cytokeratin 7 and vimentin positivity and were more prominent in the larger tumor. Conventional cytogenetics and FISH demonstrated loss of chromosomes Y and 1 and gains of chromosome 7. We postulate that the PRCC represents a neoplastic progression by the gain of chromosome 7 oncocytoma with -Y and -1.

Follow-up of renal oncocytoma diagnosed by percutaneous tumor biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcome of patients with oncocytoma of the kidney diagnosed in our center by percutaneous biopsy and treated with watchful waiting.

METHODS

From January 1998 to April 2004, of 148 solid renal tumors biopsied in our center, 15 were renal oncocytomas. The mean (+/- standard deviation) follow-up was 30 +/- 19.8 months. We report on the outcome of these patients.

RESULTS

The mean age at diagnosis was 57.6 +/- 14.4 years, and mean tumor size was 3.49 +/- 2.43 cm, corresponding to a mean tumor volume of 62.3 +/- 135.4 cm3. During follow-up, 6 of 15 patients needed surgery: two partial and four total nephrectomies. Indications for surgery were initial tumor burden, greater than 0.5 cm/yr tumor growth, and patient's preference in 1 case, 4 cases, and 1 case, respectively. The patients who received surgical treatment were significantly younger (45.5 +/- 11.1 years versus 65.6 +/- 10.3 years) and had more bulky tumors at diagnosis (50 +/- 30.1 mm versus 27.3 +/- 10.5 mm). In 1 patient, a chromophobic renal cell carcinoma was associated with the oncocytoma. All 9 patients who did not receive surgical treatment remained asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

The evolution of renal oncocytoma seems to be increase of tumor size with variable velocity. Treatment must be conservative. Initial management might be nonsurgical with close follow-up. Monitoring should not miss the time of conservative surgery. Initial tumor volume or fast tumor growth are indications for surgery. Partial nephrectomy, if the tumor size and localization are reasonable, is currently the technique of choice.

Can renal oncocytoma be differentiated from its renal mimics? The utility of anti-mitochondrial, caveolin 1, CD63 and cytokeratin 14 antibodies in the differential diagnosis

Among the epithelial renal tumours with eosinophilic cytoplasm, the main differential diagnostic problem arises between renal oncocytomas (ROs) and eosinophilic variants of chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (RCCs). We investigated the possible role of anti-mitochondrial (AMA), anti-caveolin 1 (CAV1), anti-CD63 (CD63) and anti-cytokeratin 14 (CK14) antibodies in the differential diagnosis of eosinophilic epithelial tumours and applied the Muller and Mowry modification of Hale's colloidal iron stain (HCI). Thirty-five ROs and 77 eosinophilic RCCs (27 chromophobe, 28 clear cell and 22 papillary RCCs) were included in this study. Apical and/or polar CD63 immunostaining (94%) and diffuse AMA (91%) and CAV1 (88%) immunostainings were the characteristics of ROs, whereas diffuse CD63 immunostaining (96%) and diffuse-peripheral AMA (96%) and CAV1 (92%) immunostainings were characteristic immunohistochemical features of eosinophilic chromophobe RCCs. We showed CK14 antibody not to be useful in the differential diagnosis of the eosinophilic epithelial renal tumours. The staining localisations with AMA, CAV1 and CD63 antibodies were significantly different between tumour groups. AMA had 96% sensitivity and 94% specificity, whereas CAV1 had 92% sensitivity and 97% specificity in diagnosing chromophobe RCCs. With HCI staining, ROs, showing apical and/or polar staining, could be differentiated from chromophobe RCCs, showing diffuse cytoplasmic staining. HCI had fairly low (69%) sensitivity and 100% specificity, whereas CD63 had 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity to diagnose ROs. We recommend using CD63 as the best marker of choice for distinguishing ROs from eosinophilic chromophobe RCCs when standard diagnostic criteria are not helpful.

Distribution of cytokeratins and vimentin in adult renal neoplasms and normal renal tissue: potential utility of a cytokeratin antibody panel in the differential diagnosis of renal tumors

Adult renal epithelial neoplasms (RENs) comprise several distinct clinicopathologic entities with potential prognostic and therapeutic differences. Individual cases can show overlapping morphologic features, necessitating the use of ancillary methods. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic utility of cytokeratin (CK) subtype expression pattern in a wide range of adult RENs. RENs (including clear cell [conventional] renal cell carcinoma (RCC), papillary RCC, chromophobe RCC, renal oncocytoma, collecting duct carcinoma (CDC), renal medullary carcinoma (RMC), urothelial carcinoma, metanephric adenoma (MA), tubulocystic carcinoma (TC) (also known as low-grade collecting duct carcinoma), and mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma) were immunostained for CK subtypes (CK5/CK6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20), high molecular weight CKs 1, 5, 10, 14 (HMWCK), and vimentin (Vim). The expression pattern of normal kidney was also examined and correlated with RENs. Although there is some overlap, subtypes of RENs show distinctive CK expression profiles that may be useful in several differential diagnostic settings. Clear cell RCCs typically showed a restricted expression pattern of CK8, CK18 and Vim. Papillary RCCs typically expressed CK7, CK8, CK18, CK19, and Vim and could be distinguished from MA (CK7-). Chromophobe RCCs were typically CK7+, CK8+, CK18+, and Vim-, and could be distinguished from oncocytomas (typically CK7-). In oncocytomas, nonspecific staining of unblocked endogenous biotin is a potentially significant diagnostic pitfall. CDC, RMC, and TC demonstrated similar CK expression profiles (with the exception of HMWCK expression limited to CDC), supporting a close relationship between these entities. A panel of CK5/CK6, CK17, and Vim may be helpful in distinguishing CDC (typically CK5/CK6-, CK17-, Vim+) and urothelial carcinoma (typically CK5/CK6+, CK17+, Vim-). In conclusion, CK expression patterns may be helpful in several differential diagnostic situations when dealing with adult RENs.

The usefulness of immunohistochemical markers in the differential diagnosis of renal neoplasms

Histologic subtyping of RCC has been shown to be of prognostic value; therefore, it is important to classify malignant epithelial tumors of the kidney correctly and also to differentiate them from benign ones. Overlapping morphologic features of renal tumors sometimes make histologic subtyping difficult. The accurate diagnosis and classification of RCC are based on cytoarchitectural features and require correlation with immunophenotype and cytogenetic characteristics. RCC Ma and CD10, two markers with relative renal specificity, have been used to confirm a diagnosis of suspected RCC and can facilitate the accurate diagnosis of metastatic RCC, in particular, in FNA. Although CCRCC and PRCC share most immunomarkers, CK7 and AMACR expression can be helpful in the differential diagnosis of challenging histologic variants of the two. In addition, E-cadherin aids in the distinction between types 1 and 2 PRCC. Useful markers in the differential diagnosis between ChRCC and CCRCCare CK7, RCC Ma, CD10, VIM, CD117, parvalbumin, and E-cadherin. We propose CK7/CK20/CD15 as a useful primary immunopanel to differentiate ChRCC from ONC reliably.

Oncocytic renal neoplasms: diagnostic considerations

Advances in our understanding of renal neoplasia have resulted in recognition of numerous tumors that are composed predominantly of cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm. This article discusses the features of renal oncocytoma (including oncocytosis), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and clear cell RCC; explores the relationship between renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC; briefly discusses other tumors with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm; and emphasizes the differential diagnosis of such tumors.

Hybrid chromophobe renal cell neoplasm

Hybrid renal cell neoplasms (HRCNs) containing areas of tumor cells displaying cytological features of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (CHRCC) and renal oncocytoma (RO) have been recently described in patients with renal oncocytosis and Birt-Hogg-Dube (BHD) syndrome (autosomal dominant genodermatosis). In this study, we identified cases of sporadic HRCN. We reviewed 425 consecutive renal cell carcinomas (RCC), 18 CHRCC, six HRCN, and 25 RO. Five HRCN were identified, including four from the group of RCC and two from RO. Patient age ranged from 40 to 68 years (mean age: 54 years), and the male:female ratio was 4:1. Tumors measured from 1.8 to 5 cm (mean diameter: 3.0 cm). Tumoral necrosis was not seen. Vascular invasion into medium-sized veins was identified in one HRCN. Chromophobe cells accounted for 20-80% of the tumors. Hale's colloidal stain showed weak to moderate diffuse cytoplasmic staining in scattered cells corresponding to those displaying routine staining features of chromophobe cells. Areas of oncocytic cells in studied tumors and control oncocytomas showed negative or focal cytoplasmic staining usually bordering extra- or intra-cytoplasmic lumina. Immunostaining for cytokeratin 7 and vimentin showed focal immunoreactivity in three cases and negative reactivity in all six cases, respectively. None of the study cases had microscopic RO, as commonly seen in renal oncocytosis, or were associated with BHD syndrome Sporadic HRCN accounted for 1% of RCC. They were of smaller size than RCC and were associated with a favorable prognosis.