Article

Tubulocystic carcinoma of the kidney: clinicopathologic analysis of 31 cases of a distinctive rare subtype of renal cell carcinoma.

Department of Pathology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.
The American journal of surgical pathology (Impact Factor: 4.59). 12/2008; 33(3):384-92. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181872d3f
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A distinctive tumor described under the terms Bellini duct carcinoma and low-grade collecting duct carcinoma has been referred to by us and others as tubulocystic carcinoma. This renal cell carcinoma subtype is not recognized in the World Health Organization 2004 classification. Herein, we present a detailed study of 31 cases to further characterize this rare subtype of renal cell carcinoma. The tumor occurred in adults (mean age, 54 years) with a strong male predominance (7:1). Grossly, the tumors ranged from 0.7 to 17 cm, and exhibited a spongy or "bubble wrap" appearance reflecting the microscopic presence of variably sized cystically dilated tubules lined by a single layer of epithelium. The lining varied with a cuboidal, flat, and hobnail cell appearance, and the neoplastic cells had abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and enlarged nuclei with prominent nucleoli. The cysts were closely spaced with an intervening variably fibrotic stroma. Immunohistochemistry and ultrastructural examination showed features of proximal convoluted tubules (Pax 2 immunoreactivity and short microvilli with brush border organization) and distal nephron (kidney-specific cadherin immunoreactivity and cytoplasmic interdigitation). Gene expression profiling showed that tubulocystic carcinoma displayed a unique molecular signature. Twenty-four tumors were stage pT1, 4 stage pT2, and 3 stage pT3. Disease progression (median follow-up of 56 months) occurred in 3 patients; 1 with local recurrence, and 2 with distant metastasis to bone and liver. In light of the distinctive clinicopathologic features and a low but definite metastatic potential, this unique subtype of renal cell carcinoma deserves formal recognition in the contemporary classification of renal neoplasms.

0 Followers
 · 
80 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hes et al. recently reported three cases of renal cell tumor microscopically simulating atrophic kidney as a distinct entity. The tumors are characterized by grossly sponge-like appearance, microscopically the proliferation of microfollicles without atypia, two types of calcification, capsular formation containing smooth muscle, and prognostically benign in nature. We present here one young adult patient with tumors entirely identical to the previously reported cases, arising in bilateral kidneys without any family history. Bilateral renal tumors are found in 1 to 4% of reported sporadic renal tumor cases, and pathologists should bear in mind that this unique renal neoplasm may occur as bilateral tumors.
    Pathology International 09/2014; 64(9). DOI:10.1111/pin.12193 · 1.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context .- Eosinophilic renal neoplasms include a spectrum of solid and papillary tumors ranging from indolent benign oncocytoma to highly aggressive malignancies. Recognition of the correct nature of the tumor, especially in biopsy specimens, is paramount for patient management. Objective .- To review the diagnostic approach to eosinophilic renal neoplasms with light microscopy and ancillary techniques. Data Sources .- Review of the published literature and personal experience. Conclusions .- The following tumors are in the differential diagnosis of oncocytic renal cell neoplasm: oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hybrid tumor, tubulocystic carcinoma, papillary RCC, clear cell RCC with predominant eosinophilic cell morphology, follicular thyroid-like RCC, hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC, acquired cystic disease-associated RCC, rhabdoid RCC, microphthalmia transcription factor translocation RCC, epithelioid angiomyolipoma, and unclassified RCC. In low-grade nonpapillary eosinophilic neoplasms, distinction between oncocytoma and low-grade RCC mostly rests on histomorphology; however, cytokeratin 7 immunostain may be helpful. In high-grade nonpapillary lesions, there is more of a role for ancillary techniques, including immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin 7, CA9, CD10, racemase, HMB45, and Melan-A. In papillary eosinophilic neoplasms, it is important to distinguish sporadic type 2 papillary RCC from microphthalmia transcription factor translocation and hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC. Histologic and cytologic features along with immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization tests for TFE3 (Xp11.2) and TFEB [t(6;11)] are reliable confirmatory tests. Eosinophilic epithelial neoplasms with architecture, cytology, and/or immunoprofile not qualifying for either of the established types of RCC should be classified as unclassified eosinophilic RCC and arbitrarily assigned a grade (low or high).
    Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 11/2014; 138(11):1531-41. DOI:10.5858/arpa.2013-0653-RA · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During the last 30years many advances have been made in kidney tumor pathology. In 1981, 9 entities were recognized in the WHO Classification. In the latest classification of 2004, 50 different types have been recognized. Additional tumor entities have been described since and a wide variety of prognostic parameters have been investigated with variable success; however, much attention has centered upon the importance of features relating to both stage and grade. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recommends after consensus conferences the development of reporting guidelines, which have been adopted worldwide ISUP undertook to review all aspects of the pathology of adult renal malignancy through an international consensus conference to be held in 2012. As in the past, participation in this consensus conference was restricted to acknowledged experts in the field. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
    Annales de Pathologie 12/2014; 34(6):448-61. DOI:10.1016/j.annpat.2014.10.003 · 0.29 Impact Factor