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

Empowering Renal Cancer Management with AI and Digital Pathology: Pathology, Diagnostics and Prognosis

Renal cell carcinoma is a significant health burden worldwide, necessitating accurate and efficient diagnostic methods to guide treatment decisions. Traditional pathology practices have limitations, including interobserver variability and time-consuming evaluations. In recent years, digital pathology tools emerged as a promising solution to enhance the diagnosis and management of renal cancer. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state and potential of digital pathology in the context of renal cell carcinoma. Through advanced image analysis algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies facilitate quantification of cellular and molecular markers, leading to improved accuracy and reproducibility in renal cancer diagnosis. Digital pathology platforms empower remote collaboration between pathologists and help with the creation of comprehensive databases for further research and machine learning applications. The integration of digital pathology tools with other diagnostic modalities, such as radiology and genomics, enables a novel multimodal characterization of different types of renal cell carcinoma. With continuous advancements and refinement, AI technologies are expected to play an integral role in diagnostics and clinical decision-making, improving patient outcomes. In this article, we explored the digital pathology instruments available for clear cell, papillary and chromophobe renal cancers from pathologist and data analyst perspectives.

Accurate detection of benign and malignant renal tumor subtypes with MethylBoostER: An epigenetic marker-driven learning framework

Current gold standard diagnostic strategies are unable to accurately differentiate malignant from benign small renal masses preoperatively; consequently, 20% of patients undergo unnecessary surgery. Devising a more confident presurgical diagnosis is key to improving treatment decision-making. We therefore developed MethylBoostER, a machine learning model leveraging DNA methylation data from 1228 tissue samples, to classify pathological subtypes of renal tumors (benign oncocytoma, clear cell, papillary, and chromophobe RCC) and normal kidney. The prediction accuracy in the testing set was 0.960, with class-wise ROC AUCs >0.988 for all classes. External validation was performed on >500 samples from four independent datasets, achieving AUCs >0.89 for all classes and average accuracies of 0.824, 0.703, 0.875, and 0.894 for the four datasets. Furthermore, consistent classification of multiregion samples (N = 185) from the same patient demonstrates that methylation heterogeneity does not limit model applicability. Following further clinical studies, MethylBoostER could facilitate a more confident presurgical diagnosis to guide treatment decision-making in the future.

Development of a Single Molecule Counting Assay to Differentiate Chromophobe Renal Cancer and Oncocytoma in Clinics

Malignant chromophobe renal cancer (chRCC) and benign oncocytoma (RO) are two renal tumor types difficult to differentiate using histology and immunohistochemistry-based methods because of their similarity in appearance. We previously developed a transcriptomics-based classification pipeline with "Chromophobe-Oncocytoma Gene Signature" (COGS) on a single-molecule counting platform. Renal cancer patients (n = 32, chRCC = 17, RO = 15) were recruited from Augusta University Medical Center (AUMC). Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks from their excised tumors were collected. We created a custom single-molecule counting code set for COGS to assay RNA from FFPE blocks. Utilizing hematoxylin-eosin stain, pathologists were able to correctly classify these tumor types (91.8%). Our unsupervised learning with UMAP (Uniform manifold approximation and projection, accuracy = 0.97) and hierarchical clustering (accuracy = 1.0) identified two clusters congruent with their histology. We next developed and compared four supervised models (random forest, support vector machine, generalized linear model with L2 regularization, and supervised UMAP). Supervised UMAP has shown to classify all the cases correctly (sensitivity = 1, specificity = 1, accuracy = 1) followed by random forest models (sensitivity = 0.84, specificity = 1, accuracy = 1). This pipeline can be used as a clinical tool by pathologists to differentiate chRCC from RO.

Artificial intelligence for renal cancer: From imaging to histology and beyond

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made considerable progress within the last decade and is the subject of contemporary literature. This trend is driven by improved computational abilities and increasing amounts of complex data that allow for new approaches in analysis and interpretation. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has a rising incidence since most tumors are now detected at an earlier stage due to improved imaging. This creates considerable challenges as approximately 10%–17% of kidney tumors are designated as benign in histopathological evaluation; however, certain co-morbid populations (the obese and elderly) have an increased peri-interventional risk. AI offers an alternative solution by helping to optimize precision and guidance for diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. The narrative review introduced basic principles and provide a comprehensive overview of current AI techniques for RCC. Currently, AI applications can be found in any aspect of RCC management including diagnostics, perioperative care, pathology, and follow-up. Most commonly applied models include neural networks, random forest, support vector machines, and regression. However, for implementation in daily practice, health care providers need to develop a basic understanding and establish interdisciplinary collaborations in order to standardize datasets, define meaningful endpoints, and unify interpretation.

Kidney cancer management 3.0: can artificial intelligence make us better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Artificial intelligence holds tremendous potential for disrupting clinical medicine. Here we review the current role of artificial intelligence in the kidney cancer space.

RECENT FINDINGS

Machine learning and deep learning algorithms have been developed using information extracted from radiomic, histopathologic, and genomic datasets of patients with renal masses.

SUMMARY

Although artificial intelligence applications in medicine are still in their infancy, they already hold immediate promise to improve accuracy of renal mass characterization, grade, and prognostication. As algorithms become more robust and generalizable, artificial intelligence is poised to significantly disrupt kidney cancer care.

Surveillance for low-risk kidney cancer: a narrative review of contemporary worldwide practices

The management trend of low-risk kidney cancer over the last decade has been from treatment with radical nephrectomy, to use of nephron sparing procedures of partial nephrectomy and ablation, as well as the option of active surveillance (AS). This narrative review aims to summarise the available guidelines related to AS and review the published descriptions of regional practices on the management of low-risk kidney cancer worldwide. A search of PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases for studies published 2010 to June 2020 identified 15 studies, performed between 2000 and 2019, which investigated 13 different cohorts of low-risk kidney cancer patients on AS. Although international guidelines show a level of agreement in their recommendation on how AS is conducted, in terms of patient selection, surveillance strategy and triggers for intervention, cohort studies show distinct differences in worldwide practice of AS. Prospective studies showed general agreement in their predefined selection criteria for entry into AS. Retrospective studies showed that patients who were older, with greater comorbidities, worse performance status and smaller tumours were more likely to be managed with AS. The rate of percutaneous renal mass biopsy varied between studies from 2% to 56%. The surveillance protocol was different across all studies in terms of recommended modality and frequency of imaging. Of the 6 studies which had set indications for intervention, these were broadly in agreement. Despite clear criteria for intervention, patient or surgeon preference was still the reason in 11–71% of cases of delayed intervention across 5 studies. This review shows that AS is being applied in a variety of centres worldwide and that key areas of patient selection criteria and surveillance strategy have large similarities. However, the rate of renal mass biopsy and of delayed intervention varies significantly between studies, suggesting the process of diagnosing malignant SRM and decision making whilst on AS are varying in practice. Further research is needed on the diagnosis and characterisation of incidentally found small renal masses (SRM), using imaging and histology, and the natural history of these SRM in order to develop evidence-based active surveillance protocols.

The Role of Epigenetics in the Progression of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and the Basis for Future Epigenetic Treatments

Simple Summary

The accumulated evidence on the role of epigenetic markers of prognosis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is reviewed, as well as state of the art on epigenetic treatments for this malignancy. Several epigenetic markers are likely candidates for clinical use, but still have not passed the test of prospective validation. Development of epigenetic therapies, either alone or in combination with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors of immune-checkpoint inhibitors, are still in their infancy.

Abstract

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is curable when diagnosed at an early stage, but when disease is non-confined it is the urologic cancer with worst prognosis. Antiangiogenic treatment and immune checkpoint inhibition therapy constitute a very promising combined therapy for advanced and metastatic disease. Many exploratory studies have identified epigenetic markers based on DNA methylation, histone modification, and ncRNA expression that epigenetically regulate gene expression in ccRCC. Additionally, epigenetic modifiers genes have been proposed as promising biomarkers for ccRCC. We review and discuss the current understanding of how epigenetic changes determine the main molecular pathways of ccRCC initiation and progression, and also its clinical implications. Despite the extensive research performed, candidate epigenetic biomarkers are not used in clinical practice for several reasons. However, the accumulated body of evidence of developing epigenetically-based biomarkers will likely allow the identification of ccRCC at a higher risk of progression. That will facilitate the establishment of firmer therapeutic decisions in a changing landscape and also monitor active surveillance in the aging population. What is more, a better knowledge of the activities of chromatin modifiers may serve to develop new therapeutic opportunities. Interesting clinical trials on epigenetic treatments for ccRCC associated with well established antiangiogenic treatments and immune checkpoint inhibitors are revisited.