Search

Classification of the putative flat preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the urothelium with features subthreshold for urothelial carcinoma in situ remains a challenging, indeed, vexing problem in diagnostic surgical pathology. This area, subtending lesions including flat urothelial hyperplasia, urothelial dysplasia, and atypia of unknown significance, has struggled under evolving classifications, changing criteria, and limited clinical actionability, all confounded by the recognized lack of diagnostic reproducibility. Herein, we review the state of the literature around these lesions, reviewing contemporary criteria and definitions, assessing the arguments in favor and against of retaining hyperplasia, dysplasia, and atypia of unknown significance as diagnostic entities. We clarify the intent of the original definitions for dysplasia as a lesion felt to be clearly neoplastic but with morphologic features that fall short of the threshold of urothelial carcinoma in situ. While several pathologists, including some experts in the field, conflate the term dysplasia with urothelial atypia of unknown significance, the latter is defined as a descriptive diagnosis term to express diagnostic uncertainty of a lesion of whether it is clearly reactive or neoplastic. Both molecular studies and clinical needs are considered, as we outline our approach on diagnosing each of these lesions in clinical practice. Recommendations are made to guide consistency and interoperability in future scholarship, and the place of these lesions in context of evolving trends in the field is considered.

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) reviewed recent advances in renal neoplasia, particularly post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, to provide an update on existing entities, including diagnostic criteria, molecular correlates, and updated nomenclature. Key prognostic features for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain WHO/ISUP grade, AJCC/pTNM stage, coagulative necrosis, and rhabdoid and sarcomatoid differentiation. Accrual of subclonal genetic alterations in clear cell RCC including SETD2, PBRM1, BAP1, loss of chromosome 14q and 9p are associated with variable prognosis, patterns of metastasis, and vulnerability to therapies. Recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines increasingly adopt immunotherapeutic agents in advanced RCC, including RCC with rhabdoid and sarcomatoid changes. Papillary RCC subtyping is no longer recommended, as WHO/ISUP grade and tumor architecture better predict outcome. New papillary RCC variants/patterns include biphasic, solid, Warthin-like, and papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity. For tumors with 'borderline' features between oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC, a term "oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential, not further classified" is proposed. Clear cell papillary RCC may warrant reclassification as a tumor of low malignant potential. Tubulocystic RCC should only be diagnosed when morphologically pure. MiTF family translocation RCCs exhibit varied morphologic patterns and fusion partners. TFEB-amplified RCC occurs in older patients and is associated with more aggressive behavior. Acquired cystic disease (ACD) RCC-like cysts are likely precursors of ACD-RCC. The diagnosis of renal medullary carcinoma requires a negative SMARCB1 (INI-1) expression and sickle cell trait/disease. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC) can be distinguished from papillary RCC with overlapping morphology by losses of chromosomes 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 22. MTSCC with adverse histologic features shows frequent CDKN2A/2B (9p) deletions. BRAF mutations unify the metanephric family of tumors. The term "fumarate hydratase deficient RCC" ("FH-deficient RCC") is preferred over "hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC syndrome-associated RCC". A low threshold for FH, 2SC, and SDHB immunohistochemistry is recommended in difficult to classify RCCs, particularly those with eosinophilic morphology, occurring in younger patients. Current evidence does not support existence of a unique tumor subtype occurring after chemotherapy/radiation in early childhood.

The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) undertook a critical review of the recent advances in renal neoplasia, particularly focusing on the newly accumulated evidence post-2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. In the era of evolving histo-molecular classification of renal neoplasia, morphology is still key. However, entities (or groups of entities) are increasingly characterized by specific molecular features, often associated either with recognizable, specific morphologies or constellations of morphologies and corresponding immunohistochemical profiles. The correct diagnosis has clinical implications leading to better prognosis, potential clinical management with targeted therapies, may identify hereditary or syndromic associations, which may necessitate appropriate genetic testing. We hope that this undertaking will further facilitate the identification of these entities in practice. We also hope that this update will bring more clarity regarding the evolving classification of renal neoplasia and will further reduce the category of "unclassifiable renal carcinomas/tumors". We propose three categories of novel entities: (1) "Novel entity", validated by multiple independent studies; (2) "Emerging entity", good compelling data available from at least two or more independent studies, but additional validation is needed; and (3) "Provisional entity", limited data available from one or two studies, with more work required to validate them. For some entities initially described using different names, we propose new terminologies, to facilitate their recognition and to avoid further diagnostic dilemmas. Following these criteria, we propose as novel entities: eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC RCC), renal cell carcinoma with fibromyomatous stroma (RCC FMS) (formerly RCC with leiomyomatous or smooth muscle stroma), and anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement-associated renal cell carcinoma (ALK-RCC). Emerging entities include: eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT) and thyroid-like follicular renal cell carcinoma (TLFRCC). Finally, as provisional entities, we propose low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT), atrophic kidney-like lesion (AKLL), and biphasic hyalinizing psammomatous renal cell carcinoma (BHP RCC).

Tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma, a unique tumor, was recently included as a new entity in the World Health Organization classification of renal tumors. It has variably been reported to be related to other renal cell carcinomas, including papillary renal cell carcinoma, fumarate hydratase-deficient carcinoma, and others, likely because many such carcinomas may show variable amounts of tubulocystic architecture. The published data characterizing the molecular features of these tumors are inconsistent. We studied nine "pure" tubulocystic renal cell carcinomas, as defined by International Society of Urologic Pathologists (ISUP) and World Health Organization (WHO), by targeted next-generation sequencing, and fluorescence in situ hybridization for X and Y chromosomes, to investigate if these show any unique characteristics or any overlap with known mutational/molecular profiles or copy number alterations in other subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. All nine tubulocystic carcinomas demonstrated combined losses at chromosome 9 and gains at chromosome 17, as well as, loss of chromosome Y (in 5/5). None of the tumors showed mutational profiles characteristic of other renal neoplasms, including those seen in fumarate hydratase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. Recurrent mutations in chromatin-modifying genes, KMT2C and KDM5C, were detected in two of nine tumors. Thus, tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma, if defined strictly, at the clinical and pathologic level, demonstrates genomic features distinct from other subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. These findings support the contention that tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma should be diagnosed only using strict morphological criteria and only when presenting in a "pure" form; presence of variable papillary, poorly differentiated, or other architectural patterns most likely do not belong to the category of tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma.

In recent years, there has been increased interest in carcinomas of the urologic tract, that demonstrate association with the polyoma virus BK arising in immunosuppressed individuals, though the nature of this association is uncertain. To begin to understand this phenomenon, we reviewed the clinical, morphological, and immunohistochemical features of 11 carcinomas of the urologic tract, mainly urothelial (N = 9) and collecting duct carcinomas (N = 2), occurring during immunosuppression, and expressing polyoma virus T-antigen by immunohistochemistry. These were compared to a control group of carcinomas (N = 8), also arising during immunosuppression, but without T-antigen expression. A subset of both groups were also studied by hybrid capture-based DNA sequencing, probing not only for 479 cancer-related human genes, but also for polyoma and other viral sequences. Polyoma T-antigen-expressing tumors arose in 7 males and 4 females, at a median age of 66, and were aggressive, high-grade tumors with more than 1 variant morphologic pattern identified in 81% of cases, and a majority (73%) presenting at high stage category (>pT3). Diffuse polyoma T-antigen staining was seen in 91% of cases, with co-localization of aberrant p53 staining in 89%. Sequencing detected a lower number of deleterious mutations among T-antigen-expressing cases (average 1.62; 1/8 with TP53 mutation) compared to control cases (average 3.5, 2/4 with TP53 mutation). Only BK virus was detected with clonal integration and breakpoints randomly distributed across the human and viral genomes in 5/5 of the polyoma T-antigen-expressing carcinomas, and in none of the controls (0/4). In summary, these findings identify aggressive clinicopathologic features of polyoma T-antigen-expressing carcinomas, document BK as the strain involved, and associate BK viral integration with T-antigen expression and p53 aberrancy. While the apparent randomness of viral insertion sites is functionally unclear, the differing rates of mutations between T-antigen-expressing and control cases is intriguing.

Renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations demonstrate a wide morphologic spectrum, highlighting the need to consider these entities within the differential diagnosis of renal tumors encountered in clinical practice. Herein, we describe our experience with application of clinical fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays for detection of TFE3 and TFEB gene aberrations from 85 consecutive renal cell carcinoma cases submitted to our genitourinary FISH service. Results from 170 FISH assays performed on these tumors were correlated with available clinicopathologic findings. Ninety-eight percent of renal tumors submitted for FISH evaluation were from adult patients. Thirty-one (37%) tumors were confirmed to demonstrate MITF aberrations (21 TFE3 translocation, 4 TFEB translocation, and 6 TFEB amplification cases). Overall, renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations demonstrated morphologic features overlapping with clear cell, papillary, or clear cell papillary renal cell carcinomas. Renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations were significantly more likely to demonstrate dual (eosinophilic and clear) cytoplasmic tones (P=0.030), biphasic TFEB translocation renal cell carcinoma-like morphology (P=0.002), psammomatous calcifications (P=0.002), and nuclear pseudoinclusions (P=0.001) than renal cell carcinomas without MITF aberrations. Notably, 7/9 (78%) renal cell carcinomas exhibiting subnuclear clearing and linear nuclear array (6 of which showed high World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology nucleolar grade) demonstrated TFE3 translocation, an association that was statistically significant when compared with renal cell carcinomas without MITF aberrations (P=0.009). In this cohort comprising consecutive cases, TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas were more commonly identified than renal cell carcinomas with TFEB translocations, and four (67%) of these previously unreported TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinomas demonstrated oncocytic and papillary features with a high World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology nucleolar grade. In summary, TFE3 and TFEB FISH evaluation aids in identification and accurate classification of renal cell carcinomas with MITF aberrations, including TFEB-amplified renal cell carcinoma, which may demonstrate aggressive behavior.

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.